# It’s About Time, Part IV



## Asath (Mar 28, 2012)

Following onwards . . . Here is the part where Free-will, Societal Negation of religion-based strictures, and Human Pride coalesce into the next foundation-stone of theological assertions – Punishment and Justice.

If the Christian Revelation is true, then the topic here is of the utmost importance – God is angry with Man.  Why this ought to be so is not made entirely clear, and differs with just who is making the assertion, but without buying into this assertion (in whatever form it appears), there is no reason to accept the idea of eternal punishment.  Whatever the reason – UNLESS we ALL repent of it, and begin to Believe, our very eternity will be one of punishment.  Just WHAT we ought to repent of depends . . .   

Anyone even mildly thoughtful can see the immediate contradiction, even for the advocates and believers, if one actually reads the doctrine.  Even the self-proclaimed Believers seem to be frightened of this one, and allow themselves so many ways out that it is actually pretty funny.

They start the contention already off the hook, themselves, by contending that simply by ‘Believing’ that Christ died for THEIR sins, they are ‘SAVED,’ and it is only the rest of us who need to be worried.  But that seems not to be much of a comfort to them, so they go on to explain that many people will be ‘saved’ without believing, and that the eternal punishment they speak of isn’t really eternal, and isn’t really punishment, but merely atonement.  The theologians tell us that it is only the vulgar, not the intelligent, who hold such views – but that they must not be disturbed just the same.  The actual God, they tell us, grants uncovenanted mercies, when he is in the mood.  Depending on their own mood, and reading of their own doctrine, the arguments of the theologians range in this approach from the horrific to the meaningless.  

But all of them, in the end, return in one form or another to the wrath of God and the various ways that we may ensure His approval.  This doctrine is of central importance to believers, who, without such fear of their God believe that they have no incentive to behave themselves, it seems.  So why do they have such a hard time agreeing on just what to be afraid of?  

And does this doctrine explain anything, or does it merely explain one ‘mystery’ by proposing yet another?  Does the ‘Angry God’ proposition clear anything up?  Have the mists parted, or do we yet again wonder if this God of theirs is Benevolent, or Just, or both, or neither? 

And once again, to fall back on the tired old explanation that ‘Nobody Knows’’ is once again to rely on Agnosticism.  If one does not KNOW, then one cannot be a Believer.  It is a contradiction in terms.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 28, 2012)

Asath said:


> God is angry with Man.



Two points:

1)  Not all Christians hold to this view.

2)  Can we have a little more variety in our topic titles?  All these "parts I, II, III, etc." get confusing.


----------



## Asath (Mar 28, 2012)

Agreed, on both points.

But to point 1) -- if one is a Christian, and does not hold to this particular tenet of the central theology of the faith, isn't that rather a revision of the faith itself?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 28, 2012)

Asath said:


> ... if one is a Christian, and does not hold to this particular tenet of the central theology of the faith, isn't that rather a revision of the faith itself?



Not all Christians agree that it's a tenet of the central theology of the faith.  The "sinners in the hands of an angry God" position originated in the West.  The Eastern church never believed it and would say that this Western view is the revision.


----------



## Four (Mar 29, 2012)

Good topic again Asath..

The creation myth, aside from the scientific contradictions and silliness, bugged me about the whole garden of Eden. 

It seems god was malicious in the scenario, an all powerful god creating humans, but leaving them ignorant, planting a tree in which revealed wisdom and truth, but forbidding human from eating from the tree (oh yea, he made the tree grow fruit..) without explanation. Then, when the tree was eaten from, something this god should have had the ability to foresee, as that seems to be an attribute assigned to said god. But instead that god not only punishes the poor ignorant fools, but billions of there decedents. Original sin, one of the, if not the must revolting idea that the bible postures.

To me, god does not seem angry with man, simply indifferent, it's like a child and an ant pile, the child doesn't hate the ants, he's not angry with the ants, it's just interesting to see what they do when you pour water over them or burn them with a magnifying glass.

However, this is all supposed to be out fault, we're born with a disease, and the very same book that gives this wide reaching diagnosis, is supposed to hold the cure, the same deity that imparted this inherited illness of the should is also the cure.

not knowing or hearing of the cure or disease doesn't prevent it. Plato, known only as "the philosopher" to the church had to be put into a special place invented by the church as to not be in he11, but certainly was not in heaven, as all born before Christ could not be.

Again, the bible looks to be just a tool for control, like a bridle, or an electric fence. If you can make someone belive they're ill, they'll do anything for a  cure. Even if the cure is put off till 'the afterlife' at which point they'll never find out that it was all a farce.

edit: also as im sure Aslath knows, not all christians believe the salvation is simply by "accepting christ" or w.e., many of the older denominations (orthodox, catholic, etc) still put the cure in the hands of the clergy.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 29, 2012)

Asath said:


> Following onwards . . . Here is the part where Free-will, Societal Negation of religion-based strictures, and Human Pride coalesce into the next foundation-stone of theological assertions – Punishment and Justice.
> 
> If the Christian Revelation is true, then the topic here is of the utmost importance – God is angry with Man.  Why this ought to be so is not made entirely clear, and differs with just who is making the assertion, but without buying into this assertion (in whatever form it appears), there is no reason to accept the idea of eternal punishment.  Whatever the reason – UNLESS we ALL repent of it, and begin to Believe, our very eternity will be one of punishment.  Just WHAT we ought to repent of depends . . .
> 
> ...



Asath - again your post is eloquent, but it clearly shows your lack of understanding. I know you have studied it in great detail, but that doesn't mean you would pass the written test.

The premise of God being angry with men is (I believe) incorrect. Yet, I do not know it to be true. You are wrong again about knowing and believing.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 29, 2012)

Four said:


> Good topic again Aslath..
> 
> The creation myth, aside from the scientific contradictions and silliness, bugged me about the whole garden of Eden.
> 
> ...



It is not a disease, it is knowledge. And yes, the Bible is certainly used as a device to control, and no one does that better than the church. Fortunately, the church is not in charge, unless you, as an individual, place them in charge.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1)  Not all Christians hold to this view.
> 
> 2)  Can we have a little more variety in our topic titles?  All these "parts I, II, III, etc." get confusing.



Lord have mercy......who is the author of confusion anyway? And people wanna ridicule the repetition of scripture when they keep posting the same ol' same ol' in every thread.

John 3:16 part 24......LOL

I'd like to move on to something else, but that ain't gonna happen.....some folks ain't got nuttin' else....satan is so stupid. I'd like to give a different answer....but all satan is out to do is to prove Jesus/God do not exist. Like robots, they follow their leader....or like sheep, or like wolves....patsys....scapegoats and not smart enough to even know it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> It is not a disease, it is knowledge. And yes, the Bible is certainly used as a device to control, and no one does that better than the church. Fortunately, the church is not in charge, unless you, as an individual, place them in charge.



Amen!


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 30, 2012)

Four said:


> Good topic again Aslath..
> 
> The creation myth, aside from the scientific contradictions and silliness, bugged me about the whole garden of Eden.
> 
> ...



Have you been talkin' to those mtn aliens again? Sheesh...none of that makes sense...and it's asath in case you wanted to pay attention. Remember I'm the one that is always called on my mistakes, I thought I'd start monitoring everyone....


----------



## Four (Mar 30, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> and it's asath in case you wanted to pay attention.



thanks, edited.


----------



## Asath (Mar 30, 2012)

“Not all Christians agree that it's a tenet of the central theology of the faith. The "sinners in the hands of an angry God" position originated in the West. The Eastern church never believed it and would say that this Western view is the revision.”

An interesting distinction, but the ‘Eastern’ Church was anathematized and excommunicated by Leo IX in 1054, and remains a completely different spiritual pursuit to this day.  In the context of this discussion, it is safe to say that all of the Christian denominations likely to be represented here preach the views stated.

“The premise of God being angry with men is (I believe) incorrect.”

It must be said that a thorough reading of the basic documents themselves and the explanatory theology, as developed, not only say aloud that the proposed God is angry with his creation, but also leave no other conclusion even after reams and reams of weaseling to the contrary.  The God in question here is proposed to have created all mankind, then wiped them all out but for a few, then let them start over – but with the caveat that the vast majority of them would suffer eternal torment and punishment, while the very few who did not suffer such condemnation first needed to atone, repent, confess, and adhere to a strict and rigorously ritualistic set of rules.  Exactly what those rules and rituals consist of varies widely from sect to sect, but the basic concept remains the same.

Sounds a little angry, no matter how it gets sugar-coated.

Contention:  “However, this is all supposed to be out fault, we're born with a disease, and the very same book that gives this wide reaching diagnosis, is supposed to hold the cure, the same deity that imparted this inherited illness of the should is also the cure.”

Response:  “It is not a disease, it is knowledge.”

Huh?  You were born with knowledge, and that knowledge you possessed at birth was sinful, and required a ritual anointment of Baptism and a lifetime of atonement and repentance and sincere Belief and prayer to compensate for, so as to avoid an eternity of punishment?  Is the contention that a benevolent deity would do that to an infant?

(And where are the folks who claim, time and again, that religion is the basis of their morality – stating aloud that without the fear of this angry deity they, personally, would be immoral?  How does a benevolent deity who is all rose petals and forgiveness create a moral sense of right and wrong if EVERYTHING is forgiven?  That hardly seems like an incentive to act properly.)


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 30, 2012)

Asath said:


> An interesting distinction, but the ‘Eastern’ Church was anathematized and excommunicated by Leo IX in 1054 ...



... and the Patriarch of Constantinople returned the favor.  

Both anathemas were reversed in the 20th century.




Asath said:


> In the context of this discussion, it is safe to say that all of the Christian denominations likely to be represented here preach the views stated.



Most, but not all.  I am Eastern Orthodox.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 30, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Not all Christians agree that it's a tenet of the central theology of the faith. The "sinners in the hands of an angry God" position originated in the West. The Eastern church never believed it and would say that this Western view is the revision.”
> 
> An interesting distinction, but the ‘Eastern’ Church was anathematized and excommunicated by Leo IX in 1054, and remains a completely different spiritual pursuit to this day.  In the context of this discussion, it is safe to say that all of the Christian denominations likely to be represented here preach the views stated.
> 
> ...



Asath - I am really sorry you don't get it. I am sure I cannot explain it to you, and so I won't try anymore. Please continue, and enjoy.


----------



## Asath (Apr 1, 2012)

“Not all Christians agree that it's a tenet of the central theology of the faith. The "sinners in the hands of an angry God" position originated in the West. The Eastern church never believed it and would say that this Western view is the revision.”

Y’know, when stuff like this happens – a member of one or another separatist Christian sect tries to make a point by delineating THEIR particular separation from the central doctrine - it ends up sounding a little like a kid saying that it isn’t their fault that they broke the rules.  (“Not ALL of us think that way, so you have to treat us individually, on a case-by-case basis . . . “)

Nonsense.  There was ONE Christian Church – it arose out of a cult built around a single 
Rabbi, named Jesus.  What all of you folks have done with that original thought, over the ages, is largely your own business.  The central fact is that each and all of you trace your ideas back to the same sources, and only differ on just HOW to properly worship, think, behave, ritualize, or believe.  Did your God forget to tell you all what to Believe, and leave you to fight with each other for two thousand years over just what He might have meant?  Does that make sense to you, for a God to do?  

SINCE the schism between the Eastern and Western theologies exists (and enumerating the differences, while entertaining as all get out, would be simply playing into the hand of trying to ‘distinguish’ you from each other, individually) it seems that the simple existence of these differences argues against any of the very, very Important points you each wish to make.  Do any of you realize that the very possibility that you cannot all agree negates all of you as a whole?  

You cannot ALL say, in unison, that you are Christians, following the teachings of the same Leader, while debating and differently interpreting those same teachings amongst even yourselves.  A principal fact – ANY genuine fact that is actually true bears no interpretation – it simply IS or it is NOT.  You cannot, each and every denomination, assert your ideas as facts.  Either there exists a single, irrefutable, simply demonstrated set of FACTS, or we have what the rest of us see – the religious equivalent of the Oprah Winfrey Show, where everyone’s ‘feelings’ on the matter need to be ‘respected,’ for no better reason than that the individual in question holds the view asserted.   You have to admit, objectively, that is a pretty lousy appeal, and puts not a single fact in evidence other than your own emotions.

And please don’t think I’m putting too fine a point on it – in many countries the simple act of criticizing or questioning someone else’s Belief is codified as a criminal act, punishable by Law.  Even in modern times, this sort of madness reigns.

That topic, in the deconstruction of theology – all theology – is further down the list, and is coming soon to a thread near you, but let us here plant that thought so that the seed of it may grow properly – Even the Eastern Orthodox, which is here held out as an exception, accepts and absorbs the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and reads out of the same Book – the idea of heaven and h3ell is not by any means rejected, and so the idea of eternal punishment is embraced and included by extension.  The differences concerning just HOW one ends up in one or the other, theologically, matters not a fig.

The FACT that you ALL hold eternal punishment as a condition of not agreeing with YOU is the only material fact.  You see, as an atheist, I see no God whatsoever, and am thus free to observe the behavior of MEN as just what it is, and has always been.  Where you use the word ‘God,’ I automatically replace that word with ‘Egotism.’


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 1, 2012)

Asath said:


> You see, as an atheist, I see no God whatsoever, and am thus free to observe the behavior of MEN as just what it is, and has always been.  Where you use the word ‘God,’ I automatically replace that word with ‘Egotism.’



And I am OK with that. It is not my desire to convert you. I do enjoy your post and encourage you to continue.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 1, 2012)

“Not all Christians agree that it's a tenet of the central theology of the faith. The "sinners in the hands of an angry God" position originated in the West. The Eastern church never believed it and would say that this Western view is the revision.”

Y’know, when stuff like this happens – a member of one or another separatist Christian sect ... The Orthodox church currently has around 250 million members in the world, making it the second largest Christian group in the solar system.  It is hardly a "separatist Christian sect".

... tries to make a point by delineating THEIR particular separation from the central doctrine - it ends up sounding a little like a kid saying that it isn’t their fault that they broke the rules.  (“Not ALL of us think that way, so you have to treat us individually, on a case-by-case basis . . . “)

Nonsense.  There was ONE Christian Church – Agreed.

... it arose out of a cult built around a single 
Rabbi, named Jesus.  What all of you folks have done with that original thought, over the ages, is largely your own business.  The central fact is that each and all of you trace your ideas back to the same sources, and only differ on just HOW to properly worship, think, behave, ritualize, or believe.  Did your God forget to tell you all what to Believe, and leave you to fight with each other for two thousand years over just what He might have meant?  Does that make sense to you, for a God to do?  No, and I don't believe that's what He did.  He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the church, His apostles appointed successors, and He gave His written word to follow.  You can ridicule or ignore each of them, but that was His plan.  

SINCE the schism between the Eastern and Western theologies exists (and enumerating the differences, while entertaining as all get out, would be simply playing into the hand of trying to ‘distinguish’ you from each other, individually) it seems that the simple existence of these differences argues against any of the very, very Important points you each wish to make.  Do any of you realize that the very possibility that you cannot all agree negates all of you as a whole?  Disagreement doesn't negate anything.  I don't know if you follow baseball, but one league has the designated hitter rule and one does not.  Does that negate baseball?  Whenever you get two people together, you're going to have at least three opinions on everything.  All Muslims don't agree, all Jews don't agree, and all Christians don't agree.  (BTW, all "doubters" don't agree, either.)  Disagreement is natural.  For proof, just spend five minutes reading any forum on this website.     

You cannot ALL say, in unison, that you are Christians, following the teachings of the same Leader, while debating and differently interpreting those same teachings amongst even yourselves.  A principal fact – ANY genuine fact that is actually true bears no interpretation – it simply IS or it is NOT.  You cannot, each and every denomination, assert your ideas as facts.  Either there exists a single, irrefutable, simply demonstrated set of FACTS, or we have what the rest of us see – the religious equivalent of the Oprah Winfrey Show, where everyone’s ‘feelings’ on the matter need to be ‘respected,’ for no better reason than that the individual in question holds the view asserted.   You have to admit, objectively, that is a pretty lousy appeal, and puts not a single fact in evidence other than your own emotions.  I don't think the differences are as great as you make them out to be.  I would say at least 90% of the Christians on the planet accept the Nicene Creed.  Certainly, the Catholics, Orthodox and the vast majority of Protestants do.  Obviously, there are differences between the groups (just look at any of the baptism threads or that mammoth "who are the elect" thread, for examples.)

And please don’t think I’m putting too fine a point on it – in many countries the simple act of criticizing or questioning someone else’s Belief is codified as a criminal act, punishable by Law.  Even in modern times, this sort of madness reigns.

That topic, in the deconstruction of theology – all theology – is further down the list, and is coming soon to a thread near you, but let us here plant that thought so that the seed of it may grow properly – Even the Eastern Orthodox, which is here held out as an exception, accepts and absorbs the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and reads out of the same Book – the idea of heaven and h3ell is not by any means rejected, and so the idea of eternal punishment is embraced and included by extension.  The differences concerning just HOW one ends up in one or the other, theologically, matters not a fig.

The FACT that you ALL hold eternal punishment as a condition of not agreeing with YOU is the only material fact.  You see, as an atheist, I see no God whatsoever, and am thus free to observe the behavior of MEN as just what it is, and has always been.  Where you use the word ‘God,’ I automatically replace that word with ‘Egotism'.


----------



## Asath (Apr 2, 2012)

Sir, with all respect, you contradict yourself immediately.  If the sheer SIZE of your particular sect is such as to prevent it from being considered ‘separatist,’ then you cannot then agree that there was once ‘One Church.’  Unless your contention is that the Eastern Orthodox WAS that original church, and all of the other sects separated from your own.

Is that your contention?

“Disagreement doesn't negate anything.”  I beg to differ.  Let us take your baseball analogy one step further – IF it was contended that the rules of baseball had been handed down from a supernatural and all-knowing CREATOR in the sky, then ANY disagreement concerning those rules would constitute a HERESY, punishable by death at the hands of the fundamental Believers.  The rules are either GIVEN from above, or they are negotiable.  

Either you hold a fundamental and irrefutable TRUTH, given to all Men by their CREATOR, or you have a set of flexible rules made by men, open to interpretation, and equally true to both the National League and the American League as each see fit to consider their own rules to be the LAW in the stadiums of their own making.  You cannot have both, as you seek.

“I don't think the differences are as great as you make them out to be.”

They may not be, as you say, but the point remains --  there CANNOT be any disagreement if ANY of the contentions made that aim to demonstrate the existence of this God are true.  A God, as proposed under any theology at all, cannot fail.


----------



## fish hawk (Apr 2, 2012)

Asath said:


> Sir, with all respect, you contradict yourself immediately.  If the sheer SIZE of your particular sect is such as to prevent it from being considered ‘separatist,’ then you cannot then agree that there was once ‘One Church.’  Unless your contention is that the Eastern Orthodox WAS that original church, and all of the other sects separated from your own.
> 
> Is that your contention?
> 
> ...



You dont get it!!!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> You dont get it!!!



I don't get it either.  Explain it to me like I'm a five year old.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> You dont get it!!!



Yeagh Asath! Stop using logic! It makes too much sense! Religions not suppose to make sense! With all your fancy vocabulary and sound reasoning! You just dont get it, its not suppose to make sense, thats the way god intended! He wanted to make sure the bible is full of contradictions, and interpretations that even people of the same sect can't agree on.  It's by design!  The only thing an ominpotent god can't do is get his message across clear and absolute, so all may understand. Geez, stupid intellectuals, being all smart and stuff.  You think your so smart becuase you make sense and the bible doesn't!  How dare you doubt what man has told us is the word of god! Just stop, and bahh bahh like the rest of us sheep.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh Asath! Stop using logic! It makes too much sense! Religions not suppose to make sense! With all your fancy vocabulary and and sound reasoning! You just dont get it, its not suppose to make sense, thats the way god intended! He wanted to make sure the bible is full of contradictions, and interpretations that even people of the same sect can't agree on.  It's by design!  The only thing an ominpotent god can't do is get his message across clear and absolute, so all may understand. Geez, stupid intellectuals, being all smart and stuff.  You think your so smart becuase you make sense and the bible doesn't!  How dare you doubt what man has told us is the word of god! Just stop, and bahh bahh like the rest of us sheep.



"If only I could find a good shepherd to take care of me."

No thanks.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 2, 2012)

Sir, with all respect, you contradict yourself immediately.  If the sheer SIZE of your particular sect is such as to prevent it from being considered ‘separatist,’ then you cannot then agree that there was once ‘One Church.’  Unless your contention is that the Eastern Orthodox WAS that original church, and all of the other sects separated from your own.

Is that your contention? Yes.  I would clarify, though, by saying that Protestantism split off from Catholicism, not Orthodoxy.

“Disagreement doesn't negate anything.”  I beg to differ.  Let us take your baseball analogy one step further – IF it was contended that the rules of baseball had been handed down from a supernatural and all-knowing CREATOR in the sky, then ANY disagreement concerning those rules would constitute a HERESY, punishable by death at the hands of the fundamental Believers.  The rules are either GIVEN from above, or they are negotiable.  They are not negotiable, but you refuse to recognize that mankind has different opionions on _everything_.  We're a species of hair-splitters.  I'll try to add more later.

Either you hold a fundamental and irrefutable TRUTH, given to all Men by their CREATOR, or you have a set of flexible rules made by men, open to interpretation, and equally true to both the National League and the American League as each see fit to consider their own rules to be the LAW in the stadiums of their own making.  You cannot have both, as you seek.

“I don't think the differences are as great as you make them out to be.”

They may not be, as you say, but the point remains --  there CANNOT be any disagreement if ANY of the contentions made that aim to demonstrate the existence of this God are true.  A God, as proposed under any theology at all, cannot fail.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh Asath! Stop using logic! It makes too much sense! Religions not suppose to make sense! With all your fancy vocabulary and sound reasoning! You just dont get it, its not suppose to make sense, thats the way god intended!



Asath's intellect and logic is spot on with his admitted Godless state of being. He has nothing else to rely upon with his understanding. Like it or not, Asath is serving God's purpose.




TheBishop said:


> He wanted to make sure the bible is full of contradictions, and interpretations that even people of the same sect can't agree on.  It's by design!



Absolutely correct.



TheBishop said:


> The only thing an ominpotent god can't do is get his message across clear and absolute, so all may understand.



The message is clear and absolute for those for whom it is decreed. It is not for all.



TheBishop said:


> Geez, stupid intellectuals, being all smart and stuff.  You think your so smart becuase you make sense and the bible doesn't!  How dare you doubt what man has told us is the word of god! Just stop, and bahh bahh like the rest of us sheep.



Or goats possibly?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Asath's intellect and logic is spot on with his admitted Godless state of being. He has nothing else to rely upon with his understanding. Like it or not, Asath is serving God's purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know how this makes you sound, don't you?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You know how this makes you sound, don't you?



Consistent?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Asath's intellect and logic is spot on with his admitted Godless state of being. He has nothing else to rely upon with his understanding. Like it or not, Asath is serving God's purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




All  I heard was.....bahhh bahhh.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> All  I heard was.....bahhh bahhh.



I completely understand.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You know how this makes you sound, don't you?





gemcgrew said:


> Consistent?



Yes, but consistently incorrect.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> The message is clear and absolute for those for whom it is decreed. It is not for all.



Is it for you?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is it for you?




This is the best part and it illustrates quite poignantly the argument that atheists have against deists.

Go on, String.  Tell him how He's got it wrong and you, YOU who hear god speaking directly to your heart have it right.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, but consistently incorrect.



So whos belief is right? Why?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> This is the best part and it illustrates quite poignantly the argument that atheists have against deists.
> 
> Go on, String.  Tell him how He's got it wrong and you, YOU who hear god speaking directly to your heart have it right.



Darn it beat me to it!


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

Hey ambush you meant to tell me you've heard two people that proclaim to worship the same god, read the same book, use the same label, and yet they still disagree on what it means to be a christian, before? How can that be?  Is their instruction manual not precise?  But its good enough to define absolutes, though, right?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is it for you?



Yes or I would have remained an Atheist. I did not and could not establish God with logic, intellect or science or lack of. God established within me what I could not establish myself. I didn't want or desire it. I was not looking for it.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> God established within me what I could not establish myself. I didn't want or desire it. I was not looking for it.



I have explained my transition a time or two in here, would you mind explaining yours?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Hey ambush you meant to tell me you've heard two people that proclaim to worship the same god, read the same book, use the same label, and yet they still disagree on what it means to be a christian, before? How can that be?  Is their instruction manual not precise?  But its good enough to define absolutes, though, right?



The U.S. Constitution is a very brief and plainly written document, yet people are constantly arguing about what it says.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> The U.S. Constitution is a very brief and plainly written document, yet people are constantly arguing about what it says.



Did any Supreme Being, who could easily make it clear and understandable to every living creature on the planet...let alone humans, write the Constitution?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Did any Supreme Being, who could easily make it clear and understandable to every living creature on the planet...let alone humans, write the Constitution?



A Supreme Being wrote neither the Bible nor the Constitution.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I have explained my transition a time or two in here, would you mind explaining yours?



It was not my transition but God's. I was an object that played no more of a roll in it than I did in my natural birth.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> A Supreme Being wrote neither the Bible nor the Constitution.



Which one is supposed to be the inerrant word of god?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> It was not my transition but God's. I was an object that played no more of a roll in it than I did in my natural birth.



So you have no free will?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> So you have no free will?



None


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes or I would have remained an Atheist. I did not and could not establish God with logic, intellect or science or lack of. God established within me what I could not establish myself. I didn't want or desire it. I was not looking for it.



Do you think God loves you more than others?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Hey ambush you meant to tell me you've heard two people that proclaim to worship the same god, read the same book, use the same label, and yet they still disagree on *what it means to be a christian*, before? How can that be?  Is their instruction manual not precise?  But its good enough to define absolutes, though, right?



I never said he wasn't a Christian.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> None



If we have no free will, is the evil that we do from God?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I never said he wasn't a Christian.



Never said you did.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> So you have no free will?



Please don't open that can of worms.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If we have no free will, is the evil that we do from God?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Please don't open that can of worms.



I didn't he did.  I knew his aswer before I typed the question. It's like it was predetermined or something! 

The worms are out and all over the ground.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Which one is supposed to be the inerrant word of god?



The authorship is not the point. I was just answering your question, highlighted below:



TheBishop said:


> Hey ambush you meant to tell me you've heard two people that proclaim to worship the same god, read the same book, use the same label, and yet they still disagree on what it means to be a christian, before? How can that be? Is their instruction manual not precise? But its good enough to define absolutes, though, right?



It can "be" because human beings are interpreting both documents.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> If we have no free will, is the evil that we do from God?



Is God sovereign? Does God control all things? There is no middle ground between the sovereignty of God and Atheism.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Do you think God loves you more than others?



How can any mortal, no good, sinful Son of Adam possibly fathom what God's love is?  Was it God's love and righteous justice that turned Job's wife into salt?   Killed all the sweet little, first born babies in their sleep?   I certainly don't understand that kind of love.  Must be a God thing.



stringmusic said:


> If we have no free will, is the evil that we do from God?



His clandestine righteousness.  You free willers don't like the notion that God might possibly pick some people and not others.  He does things like that.  You want to special plead that He wouldn't do this or that because it's not his nature or his message.  From how I read the Bible, He's free to do with you as he likes.  He is not subject to your ideas about justice.  I think Gem is reading it right.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I knew his aswer before I typed the question.



As did I, as did we all.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Did any Supreme Being, who could easily make it clear and understandable to every living creature on the planet...let alone humans, write the Constitution?



Exactly what we would expect of a work of man. Funny how a god that managed to create the entire universe and everything in it has to depend on humans to write out his message upon which our eternal souls depend.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> A Supreme Being wrote neither the Bible nor the Constitution.



EXACTLY
AND the reason why both can and are interpreted on individual levels. IF a Supreme Being had anything to do with either, there would nor could be any doubt about the contents.
I only mention the Constitution because you included it in the conversation.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> EXACTLY
> AND the reason why both can and are interpreted on individual levels.



I thought I'd been saying that all along.




bullethead said:


> IF a Supreme Being had anything to do with either, there would nor could be any doubt about the contents.



I disagree with that part.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 2, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I thought I'd been saying that all along.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You have been saying that, but I don't think you listen to what you say.


Do you disagree because it is your feelings or do you know something we don't? I mean of all the creator's creations the Bible has GOT to be the biggest failure.
Can you think of anything else that God inspired or had a hand in or created that has done it's job so poorly?

Clearly it has been shown that as sooner or later as mankind gets involved in anything it is corrupted, tainted, or downright ruined. That makes a great case for for the Bible being man made.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Never said you did.





TheBishop said:


> Hey ambush you meant to tell me you've heard two people that proclaim to worship the same god, read the same book, use the same label, *and yet they still disagree on what it means to be a christian,* before? How can that be?  Is their instruction manual not precise?  But its good enough to define absolutes, though, right?



Then who is the "they" in your post? You indicated in this post that since I think he was incorrect in his belief that people do not have free will that he was somehow not a Christian.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Is God sovereign? Does God control all things? There is no middle ground between the sovereignty of God and Atheism.



I'll answer your questions after you have answered mine.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Exactly what we would expect of a work of man. Funny how a god that managed to create the entire universe and everything in it *has to *depend on humans to write out his message upon which our eternal souls depend.


"Has to", that's where you went wrong. "Chose to" would have been better.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Then who is the "they" in your post? You indicated in this post that since I think he was incorrect in his belief that people do not have free will that he was somehow not a Christian.



How many times do we see someone say "He isn't a REAL Christian"?  Some here might even say that about members of the UCC or anyone else that doesn't think that the Bible is the inerrant word of god.  Gem says he had nothing to do with his belief.   He states over and over that he was a worthless so and so and was only saved by god's mercy.  That sounds like the Bible I've read.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'll answer your questions after you have answered mine.



I thought my questions answered it, but yes, God controls all things and that would include the evil that men do.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Then who is the "they" in your post? You indicated in this post that since I think he was incorrect in his belief that people do not have free will that he was somehow not a Christian.



For the record, I did not take it that way and would not be offended even if you did. I do not like the term christian anyway. It has become polluted.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I thought my questions answered it, but yes, God controls all things and that would include the evil that men do.




That's what a god would do.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 2, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You have been saying that, but I don't think you listen to what you say.



I do.  Trust me.

If I make a flippant post, the embedded Monty Python video will make it obvious.




bullethead said:


> Do you disagree because it is your feelings or do you know something we don't?



I disagree because I believe He inspired men to write it.  Despite that, men have obviously disagreed about certain subjects.




bullethead said:


> Clearly it has been shown that as sooner or later as mankind gets involved in anything it is corrupted, tainted, or downright ruined.



Yep.  Been that way ever since the Garden of Eden.  God knew what He was getting when He decided to love us.




bullethead said:


> That makes a great case for for the Bible being man made.



I know I've said that before.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I do.  Trust me.
> 
> If I make a flippant post, the embedded Monty Python video will make it obvious.
> 
> ...



It seems painfully obvious to me that the writers of the Bible didn't think their story through.  Perhaps they were incapable of understanding the complicated ideas that they put forth.  They certainly would have failed philosophy 101.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It seems painfully obvious to me that the writers of the Bible didn't think their story through.  Perhaps they were incapable of understanding the complicated ideas that they put forth.  They certainly would have failed philosophy 101.



It is a stumbling block for some and a stepping stone for others. That is intentional.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 2, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> "Has to", that's where you went wrong. "Chose to" would have been better.



That hardly helps your case. Would a perfect being with a perfect message choose an imperfect means of transmitting that message when eternity for the creatures he loves hangs in the balance of the effectiveness of that transmission?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> It seems painfully obvious to me that the writers of the Bible didn't think their story through.  Perhaps they were incapable of understanding the complicated ideas that they put forth.  They certainly would have failed philosophy 101.



Maybe the writers never intended to be writing one piece of a book.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> It is a stumbling block for some and a stepping stone for others. That is intentional.



With all due respect, so say you.  If the god you believe in exists, he's a mean (by human standards) son of a gun.  I suppose that's up to him.



atlashunter said:


> That hardly helps your case. Would a perfect being with a perfect message choose an imperfect means of transmitting that message when eternity for the creatures he loves hangs in the balance of the effectiveness of that transmission?



You don't know what love is.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Would a perfect being with a perfect message choose an imperfect means of transmitting that message when eternity for the creatures he loves hangs in the balance of the effectiveness of that transmission?



No, but God chose a perfect message and a perfect means in eternity for the objects of his love. Nothing hangs in the balance, for everything is in order.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> With all due respect, so say you.  If the god you believe in exists, he's a mean (by human standards) son of a gun.  I suppose that's up to him.



And if that makes God a monster, get ready to meet a monster. Would we appreciate or comprehend nice without mean? Or mercy without wrath?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> And if that makes God a monster, get ready to meet a monster. Would we appreciate or comprehend nice without mean? Or mercy without wrath?



Well, that monster can rip me apart after I die.  While I've got breath in me a will denounce him, refuse to believe that he exists and never, ever bow before him.  




Or I will just realize that he is a fiction an enjoy the rest of my stay here on Earth.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Is God sovereign? Does God control all things? There is no middle ground between the sovereignty of God and Atheism.



Then there is really no such thing as mercy, there is no such thing as grace, there is no such thing as an individual, we are just manifestations of his will, and life becomes pointless. The responsobility of our actions lies squarely on him, for they are his actions not our own.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Then there is really no such thing as mercy, there is no such thing as grace, there is no such thing as an individual, we are just manifestations of his will, and life becomes pointless. The responsobility of our actions lies squarely on him, for they are his actions not our own.



Oh, but there is. He will be merciful and gracious to the objects of his love(vessels of mercy). Not so for the objects of his wrath(vessels of wrath). We are his creation to do with as he pleases.

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 honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Gem says he had nothing to do with his belief.   He states over and over that he was a worthless so and so and was only saved by god's mercy.  That sounds like the Bible I've read.



Because that interpretation supports your perspective.  It's easy to disavow and hate a god who created evil, and preordained suffering.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 2, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Well, that monster can rip me apart after I die.  While I've got breath in me a will denounce him, refuse to believe that he exists and never, ever bow before him.


Well of course you will, you have no choice. God designed you a "vessel of wrath". As a Christian who believes in freewill, and i've read the potter & clay verses, why would God make a whole continent a vessel of wrath and give us a great commission?
Why did God create this forum for us to debate useless information that we have no control over?
For that matter why did he create Adam & Eve? Is it because he hadn't created video games yet? Why would he be wrathful of people who never had a choice to accept him? Why don't I jump out in front of a bus?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Because that interpretation supports your perspective.



I think his perspective is that there is no God.



JB0704 said:


> It's easy to disavow and hate a god who created evil, and preordained suffering.



You just described the heart of man, enmity against God.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 2, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Well of course you will, you have no choice. God designed you a "vessel of wrath".


That is a huge assumption on your part. He may very well be a vessel of mercy.


Artfuldodger said:


> As a Christian who believes in freewill, and i've read the potter & clay verses, why would God make a whole continent a vessel of wrath and give us a great commission?


What continent would that be?


Artfuldodger said:


> Why did God create this forum for us to debate useless information that we have no control over?


For his purpose.


Artfuldodger said:


> For that matter why did he create Adam & Eve?


Again, for his purpose.


Artfuldodger said:


> Why would he be wrathful of people who never had a choice to accept him?


To make his power known.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I think his perspective is that there is no God.



And it's easier to hate / disregard an angry god than a loving one.  An outsider's view of a preordained universe is one of cruelty, not grace, compassion, and mercy.  

I do admire the strength of your convictions.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 2, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> That is a huge assumption on your part. He may very well be a vessel of mercy.
> You are correct, he just doesn't have a choice in choosing which vessel.
> What continent would that be?
> You are correct again, i'll change it to village.
> ...


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 3, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> gemcgrew said:
> 
> 
> > That is a huge assumption on your part. He may very well be a vessel of mercy.
> ...


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And it's easier to hate / disregard an angry god than a loving one.  An outsider's view of a preordained universe is one of cruelty, not grace, compassion, and mercy.



Wonder what they think when we do something we shouldn't? Gee, God makes people do mean things?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And it's easier to hate / disregard an angry god than a loving one.


Or a God that loves you too much to interfere with your free will?


JB0704 said:


> An outsider's view of a preordained universe is one of cruelty, not grace, compassion, and mercy.


What do you mean by "outsider"?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Or a God that loves you too much to interfere with your free will?



I don't view free will as a measure of love, but a method of creation.  It is what it is.



gemcgrew said:


> What do you mean by "outsider"?



Non-believer.  Poor choice of words on my part.  A non-believer will focus on evil, attribute it to God, and assume God, if he exists, must also be evil.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Or a God that loves you too much to interfere with your free will?
> 
> What do you mean by "outsider"?



Im sorry but I find you idea of god quite inadequate for several reasons.

First mercy cannot, absolutely cannot, exist without free will.  If we are not free to chose, then the choice is not ours, there can be nothing to forgive us for, because the actions are not our own.  Again everything becomes pointless because every action we do is really god acting through us. We are then mere toys for him to play with for his own amusement.


----------



## Four (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Non-believer.  Poor choice of words on my part.  A non-believer will focus on evil, attribute it to God, and assume God, if he exists, must also be evil.



This is pretty valid... The complaint is also made about believers. "A believer will focus on good, attribute it to god, and assume god is good"

When in reality, if we assume god is real, then we have to assume that it has created all the good and the evil.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

Four said:


> When in reality, if we assume god is real, then we have to assume that it has created all the good and the evil.



Unless we believe that free will is a product of creation. Then evil becomes man's creation as an opposite to the choice for good.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Im sorry but I find you idea of god quite inadequate for several reasons.


If you don't believe in God, finding my idea inadequate, makes perfect sense to me. 


TheBishop said:


> First mercy cannot, absolutely cannot, exist without free will.


I would argue that mercy can not exist without wrath, free will has nothing to do with it.


TheBishop said:


> If we are not free to chose, then the choice is not ours, there can be nothing to forgive us for, because the actions are not our own.  Again everything becomes pointless because every action we do is really god acting through us. We are then mere toys for him to play with for his own amusement.


The created, taking issue with the creator, is somewhat pointless. Perhaps you have been more influenced by popular mainstream religion than you care to admit.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Unless we believe that free will is a product of creation. Then evil becomes man's creation as an opposite to the choice for good.



Then God ceases to be God.


----------



## Four (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Unless we believe that free will is a product of creation. Then evil becomes man's creation as an opposite to the choice for good.



Oh... Ok then, I guess we'll just stick with the evil god thing.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Then God ceases to be God.



According to you.  I don't believe he has a need to micro manage all of creation in order to be God.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

Four said:


> Oh... Ok then, I guess we'll just stick with the evil god thing.



If that's what works for ya'........


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> According to you.  I don't believe he has a need to micro manage all of creation in order to be God.



Are you saying that God relinquishes control?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> If you don't believe in God, finding my idea inadequate, makes perfect sense to me. Never said anything of the sort.
> 
> I would argue that mercy can not exist without wrath, free will has nothing to do with it.
> It is all the action of god so neither exist.
> The created, taking issue with the creator, is somewhat pointless. Perhaps you have been more influenced by popular mainstream religion than you care to admit.



I'm not taking issue with a creator, just your vision of one.  Your vision, makes life more pointless then any other view I have seen on this board. Without free will there can be no individual, there can only be manifestation of gods will. 
For if we are not free to act then we are puppets, Being acted by god.  Like a kid with toys choosing who's the bad guys and who are the good guys, people get saved by no other criteria then his choice.  We have no say, to me that sounds more bleak then all the other views.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Never said anything of the sort.


I apologize. I must have deduced that from your post.


TheBishop said:


> I'm not taking issue with a creator, just your vision of one.  Your vision, makes life more pointless then any other view I have seen on this board.


I don't see it as pointless if it pleases God.


TheBishop said:


> Without free will there can be no individual, there can only be manifestation of gods will. For if we are not free to act then we are puppets, Being acted by god.  Like a kid with toys choosing who's the bad guys and who are the good guys, people get saved by no other criteria then his choice.


That is my belief and I am here for no other reason than to discuss it.


TheBishop said:


> We have no say, to me that sounds more bleak then all the other views.


Very bleak for some.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> That is my belief and I am here for no other reason than to discuss it.



Under your belief, we are not discussing anything. Discussing would imply we have a choice in the words we say.  Under your belief our conversation is god talking to himself. Again the kid playing with dolls making them talk.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Under your belief, we are not discussing anything. Discussing would imply we have a choice in the words we say.


Not at all. But I would agree that the very discussion is decreed by God.


TheBishop said:


> Under your belief our conversation is god talking to himself.


Interesting, but I don't see it that way. I see God using one man to talk with another. That is the means by which he has chosen to reveal himself.


----------



## Four (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Interesting, but I don't see it that way. I see God using one man to talk with another. That is the means by which he has chosen to reveal himself.



So if i had sock puppets on either hand with little faces painted on them, I wouldn't be talking to myself.. right?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I'm not taking issue with a creator, just your vision of one.  Your vision, makes life more pointless then any other view I have seen on this board. Without free will there can be no individual, there can only be manifestation of gods will.
> For if we are not free to act then we are puppets, Being acted by god.  Like a kid with toys choosing who's the bad guys and who are the good guys, people get saved by no other criteria then his choice.  We have no say, to me that sounds more bleak then all the other views.





The Force is strong in you, young Jedi.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

Four said:


> So if i had sock puppets on either hand with little faces painted on them, I wouldn't be talking to myself.. right?


It depends. Video please.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Not at all. But I would agree that the very discussion is decreed by God.Not puppets.
> 
> Interesting, but I don't see it that way. I see God using one man to talk with another. (puppets.)That is the means by which he has chosen to reveal himself.



Contradict much?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 3, 2012)

Futhermore if we have no free will, you are not choosing to worship him. Your worship is again his manifestation and he is by default worshiping himself. That just  doesnt sound bleak but even more pointless.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Contradict much?



I don't see the contradiction. God created vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath. If that somehow makes them puppets, I don't have an issue with being a puppet.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Futhermore if we have no free will, you are not choosing to worship him.


Correct, I did not choose to worship him.


TheBishop said:


> Your worship is again his manifestation and he is by default worshiping himself.


Interesting, but I do not see it that way.


TheBishop said:


> That just  doesnt sound bleak but even more pointless.


Again, I don't see it as pointless if it pleases God.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Are you saying that God relinquishes control?



Relinquishes and control are not the word I am looking for.  I see it more as not exerting or forcing his will on creation.  Creating creation to be free


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Relinquishes and control are not the word I am looking for.  I see it more as not exerting or forcing his will on creation.  Creating creation to be free



Free from what? Oversight? Interference? Sovereignty?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Free from what? Oversight? Interference? Sovereignty?



Free to choose right from wrong.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Free to choose right from wrong.



Without any influence other than our own?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Without any influence other than our own?



They woulddn't be free unless the choice was theirs.  But, there are always influences in any decision made, peers, co-workers, bosses, family, financial, political, religious, moral, etc.

It's just my belief system.  I know it doesn't line up with yours.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It's just my belief system.  I know it doesn't line up with yours.


That is OK. I wouldn't be in here if everybody agreed with me. 



JB0704 said:


> They woulddn't be free unless the choice was theirs.  But, there are always influences in any decision made, peers, co-workers, bosses, family, financial, political, religious, moral, etc.



Do you think that God influences your decision in any way? I am just trying to understand how you reconcile it.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Do you think that God influences your decision in any way? I am just trying to understand how you reconcile it.



Not directly, but indirectly on most things (prayer, studying, etc.).  I believe he can intervene, but not that he directly does so on all occasions.  How he chooses when and where is a mystery to me.

People pray for things all the time.  And, I am sure there are a lot of praying people every time a plane crashes.  That tells me that prayer does not absolutely affect events the way we wish for them too.  I am sure starving people have prayed for food, and thanked God when they got it, or cursed God when they didn't.  

I believe the above examples are a result of free will of people interacting with creation.  If God directly influenced everything, then I would think he is complicit in all things.  But if he does not, then men have the choice to choose, and creation deals with the consequences.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Not directly, but indirectly on most things (prayer, studying, etc.).  I believe he can intervene, but not that he directly does so on all occasions.  How he chooses when and where is a mystery to me.



So God influences indirectly on most things and intervenes indirectly on some occasions. Where is free will or free choice in that?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> So God influences indirectly on most things and intervenes indirectly on some occasions. Where is free will or free choice in that?



Inspiration & guidance is different than  forcing someone to do something.
Through the power of prayer God can help. I don't think he wants us to pray just as a ritual.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Not directly, but indirectly on most things (prayer, studying, etc.).  I believe he can intervene, but not that he directly does so on all occasions.  How he chooses when and where is a mystery to me.
> 
> People pray for things all the time.  And, I am sure there are a lot of praying people every time a plane crashes.  That tells me that prayer does not absolutely affect events the way we wish for them too.  I am sure starving people have prayed for food, and thanked God when they got it, or cursed God when they didn't.
> 
> I believe the above examples are a result of free will of people interacting with creation.  If God directly influenced everything, then I would think he is complicit in all things.  But if he does not, then men have the choice to choose, and creation deals with the consequences.



If you don't know when he's helping you or messing with you or ignoring you then why consider him at all?  Did you see Four's _Malcolm in the Middle_ post?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If you don't know when he's helping you or messing with you or ignoring you then why consider him at all?  Did you see Four's _Malcolm in the Middle_ post?



Yes, I saw it.  And, I guess the best answer is to say that I consider him because I know he is there.

Like I said, I do not view prayer as a means to an end, rather as a communication process.  I believe the wheel is in motion, and intervention is not the norm (witness starving people, terrorism, the DNC, etc).


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Inspiration & guidance is different than  forcing someone to do something.


My point was that any influence or interference by God, whether it be inspiration or guidance, as you suggest, would infringe upon and negate free will.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> My point was that any influence or interference by God, whether it be inspiration or guidance, as you suggest, would infringe upon and negate free will.



To the extent of the influence.  It does not elliminate it.  I believe in free will and limited intervention.  Both can co-exist.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, I saw it.  And, I guess the best answer is to say that I consider him because I know he is there.
> 
> Like I said, I do not view prayer as a means to an end, rather as a communication process.  I believe the wheel is in motion, and intervention is not the norm (witness starving people, terrorism, the DNC, etc).





JB0704 said:


> To the extent of the influence.  It does not elliminate it.  I believe in free will and limited intervention.  Both can co-exist.




If the Devil jumped out from behind a bush and chopped your arm off with his barbed tongue made of fire, how would you know if it was god's plan, either using the devil for his clandestine, righteous purpose or god's indifference (although I suppose by him allowing the devil to chop your arm off, in a way he's condoning it).  I see Gem as saying, that if that happened he would own the Devil's actions to god, thank god for his mercy and ask what else he need surrender.  That's a good disciple to me.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I believe in free will and limited intervention.  Both can co-exist.



I find that interesting.


----------



## Asath (Apr 3, 2012)

After reading along here, I’m pretty glad that I, “don’t get it.”  

‘IT’ seems to be pretty random and illogical, and proposes an even higher ‘IT’ as a deity who is portrayed as just plain psychotic.  So, thanks for the extended hijack --  it provides a great deal of insight into the infinite manufacturing of rationalizations, but provides not a single demonstrable bit of actual reasoning.  

Anyway, the topic at hand remains – if there is such a thing as a God, and that God is the Creator of the odd little critters called Men, then what the heck is He so angry about?  Is condemning the larger part of humanity to eternal punishment, as the Christian Doctrine does, somehow explained as Just and Benevolent?  Certainly the all-knowing knew, by definition, and by some definitions here He actually designs every action – either way that would be punishing Us for His failures, not our own, if the outcome is less than satisfactory.  Irrational and psychotic, in other words.  

What possible reasoning could cause a thoughtful, intelligent person to buy into an absurd concept like eternal punishment?  Especially within a self-contradictory doctrine which also proposes that you have either no free will at all, or one that was GIVEN to you, and thus was never your own anyway?  And more especially after also proposing that EVERYTHING was created, even the so-called ‘evils,’ leaving it up to this God to explain by just what sick sense of humor He might Create something, put it in front of you, and then say – “Don’t Touch That!”  

Humbug.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> Certainly the all-knowing knew, by definition, and by some definitions here He actually designs every action – either way that would be punishing Us for His failures, not our own, if the outcome is less than satisfactory.  Irrational and psychotic, in other words.



Or He created two groups, one for mercy and one for wrath. Outcome is satisfactory.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I find that interesting.



Most Christians belief falls somewhere between freewill and predestiny. It is hard to believe in both. Maybe it's limited freewill. 

Have you ever considered that the devil is an instrument of God as in the story of Job?


----------



## Asath (Apr 3, 2012)

Wow.  

“Or He created two groups, one for mercy and one for wrath. Outcome is satisfactory.”   Satisfactory for Who?  Are you honestly proposing that the God of your imaginings made one dog to pet and another one to kick?  Which part of this particular scenario ISN”T psychopathic?  

“Maybe it's limited freewill.”  So you can choose chocolate or vanilla, but not rocky road or butter pecan?  C’mon.

“Have you ever considered that the devil is an instrument of God  . . . ?”

I haven’t even considered that the ‘devil’ exists at all.  That would be just as absurd, illogical, and unsupportable by any evidence whatsoever as the existence of a God.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> Which part of this particular scenario ISN”T psychopathic?



For once, I will agree with you.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 3, 2012)

Limited Freewill
    We are able to take more than one possible course of action in any given scenario. There are obvious choices in life we can choose to follow. We can conceive and believe things. This proves some free will even though there are limitations on the choices available to us. For example, because I am not a fish, I do not have the choice of living underwater without some sort of breathing apparatus. It is determined beforehand that human life is incompatible with living unaided under water. I am therefore limited to certain pre-determined boundaries if I want to sustain life. In like manner, in some situations I have a limited number of choices I can make because of the randomness of life. I hope I never have to decide what to do if I am in a plane that is about to crash. I would have no control of the physics causing the plane to crash, but I still have some obvious choices I can make and act upon, like remain calm or panic.
So what do I control? There are many things over which I have control and thus free will. I control my responses to the choices I am presented in life. I can control my thoughts. I can control the things I put into my body. I control the things I say and the things I do. Nobody forces me to act a certain way or respond in a specific manner. I control my attitudes and my beliefs. I decide what I will do with my time, who I will go visit, what work I will do, what I choose to study. I may not choose many of the things that happen to me in this life but I can and do choose how I respond to those situations. I determine the character I build by using my free will adequately. My free will is limited to those things over which I have some control and have choices. I do not have free will when it comes to the laws of physics and nature. They are out of my control. In the things over which I do have control such as thoughts, beliefs and opinions I choose what I want to think about or believe. My thoughts are not caused and are not random. They are purposeful and demonstrate free will, especially when I act upon them. Therefore, my conclusion is that we have limited or adequate determinism and limited but genuine free will.


This was a cut & paste!


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> Satisfactory for Who?


The Creator


Asath said:


> Are you honestly proposing that the God of your imaginings made one dog to pet and another one to kick?


Honestly proposing that God created you and me, either for mercy or wrath. Neither of us have the ability to change it.


----------



## Asath (Apr 3, 2012)

Okay, but I don’t see anything in your definition of ‘Limited Freewill’ that doesn’t also describe a German Shepherd.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I find that interesting.



Intervention being Jesus, the Bible, etc.  Free will being our choice to be good or evil.  

Why is it interesting?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 3, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> If the Devil jumped out from behind a bush and chopped your arm off with his barbed tongue made of fire, how would you know if it was god's plan, either using the devil for his clandestine, righteous purpose or god's indifference (although I suppose by him allowing the devil to chop your arm off, in a way he's condoning it).



I would attribute it to my arm getting chopped off by somebody with a barbed tongue.  An evil action committed by a free being.



ambush80 said:


> I see Gem as saying, that if that happened he would own the Devil's actions to god, thank god for his mercy and ask what else he need surrender.  That's a good disciple to me.



If that is your opinion of a good disciple, then cool.  I respect Gem's faith, and his convictions also.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 3, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> To the extent of the influence.  It does not elliminate it.  I believe in free will and limited intervention.  Both can co-exist.




Absolutely!! If we had no free will at all, we would never sin, God is not going to cause us to sin, and I'd like to see anyone here who believes they are sinless.

And I believe when I pray, when I ask God for help or let Him be control.....then He will intervene, or what about mercy? or grace? isn't having mercy on us, intervention???? If we have no free will and never do anything against God's will then we would never sin and never need grace or mercy would we?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 3, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Honestly proposing that God created you and me, either for mercy or wrath. Neither of us have the ability to change it.



God is no respecter of persons, we can change. If people cannot change what do they need the gospel for? If they are prechosen what do they need the gospel for?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 3, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Limited Freewill
> We are able to take more than one possible course of action in any given scenario. There are obvious choices in life we can choose to follow. We can conceive and believe things. This proves some free will even though there are limitations on the choices available to us. For example, because I am not a fish, I do not have the choice of living underwater without some sort of breathing apparatus. It is determined beforehand that human life is incompatible with living unaided under water. I am therefore limited to certain pre-determined boundaries if I want to sustain life. In like manner, in some situations I have a limited number of choices I can make because of the randomness of life. I hope I never have to decide what to do if I am in a plane that is about to crash. I would have no control of the physics causing the plane to crash, but I still have some obvious choices I can make and act upon, like remain calm or panic.
> So what do I control? There are many things over which I have control and thus free will. I control my responses to the choices I am presented in life. I can control my thoughts. I can control the things I put into my body. I control the things I say and the things I do. Nobody forces me to act a certain way or respond in a specific manner. I control my attitudes and my beliefs. I decide what I will do with my time, who I will go visit, what work I will do, what I choose to study. I may not choose many of the things that happen to me in this life but I can and do choose how I respond to those situations. I determine the character I build by using my free will adequately. My free will is limited to those things over which I have some control and have choices. I do not have free will when it comes to the laws of physics and nature. They are out of my control. In the things over which I do have control such as thoughts, beliefs and opinions I choose what I want to think about or believe. My thoughts are not caused and are not random. They are purposeful and demonstrate free will, especially when I act upon them. Therefore, my conclusion is that we have limited or adequate determinism and limited but genuine free will.
> 
> ...



Very good~~


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 3, 2012)

Asath said:


> Okay, but I don’t see anything in your definition of ‘Limited Freewill’ that doesn’t also describe a German Shepherd.



Most dogs would fit the description of a Christian,(loyal, honest, faithful, caring, etc.)

The freewill vs predestiny debate is not just a religious debate. Atheist are also divided on this topic. Here is another view: 
Life without choice, without morality, without accountability, is meaningless. It is simply the playing out of an immutable and pointless script. It makes us all the unwitting observers of our lives, rather than active participators in them. But if there is free-will, and I say if advisedly because I genuinely don’t think we know, it is clearly not limitless. I drew a distinction in the last post between what I described as “lesser determinisms” and this radical, fundamental determinism. Just as life is meaningless if radical determinism is true, so it is impossible if free-will is unconstrained.
This is a more Christian view, I like the point that we have freewill because God has free will. (made in his image)
If “free will” means that God gives humans the opportunity to make choices that genuinely affect their destiny, then yes, human beings do have a free will. The world’s current sinful state is directly linked to choices made by Adam and Eve. God created mankind in His own image, and that included the ability to choose.

However, free will does not mean that mankind can do anything he pleases. Our choices are limited to what is in keeping with our nature. For example, a man may choose to walk across a bridge or not to walk across it; what he may not choose is to fly over the bridge—his nature prevents him from flying. In a similar way, a man cannot choose to make himself righteous—his (sin) nature prevents him from canceling his guilt (Romans 3:23). So, free will is limited by nature.

This limitation does not mitigate our accountability. The Bible is clear that we not only have the ability to choose, we also have the responsibility to choose wisely. In the Old Testament, God chose a nation (Israel), but individuals within that nation still bore an obligation to choose obedience to God. And individuals outside of Israel were able to choose to believe and follow God as well (e.g., Ruth and Rahab).

In the New Testament, sinners are commanded over and over to “repent” and “believe” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Acts 3:19; 1 John 3:23). Every call to repent is a call to choose. The command to believe assumes that the hearer can choose to obey the command.

Perhaps God is limited by his own nature.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I would attribute it to my arm getting chopped off by somebody with a barbed tongue.  An evil action committed by a free being.




How do you know whether or not god made the devil do it (for some righteous 'lesson') or allowed the devil to do it (watching, perhaps amused or at least indifferent)?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> How do you know whether or not god made the devil do it (for some righteous 'lesson') or allowed the devil to do it (watching, perhaps amused or at least indifferent)?



For the same reason I don't believe the book of Job is a true story.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> For the same reason I don't believe the book of Job is a true story.



What about Pharaoh? Do you believe God hardened his heart?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Intervention being Jesus, the Bible, etc.  Free will being our choice to be good or evil.
> 
> Why is it interesting?



That restraint and freedom can coexist.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 4, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Absolutely!! If we had no free will at all, we would never sin, God is not going to cause us to sin, and I'd like to see anyone here who believes they are sinless.
> 
> And I believe when I pray, when I ask God for help or let Him be control.....then He will intervene, or what about mercy? or grace? isn't having mercy on us, intervention???? If we have no free will and never do anything against God's will then we would never sin and never need grace or mercy would we?



I am sinless. I need neither grace nor mercy.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> For the same reason I don't believe the book of Job is a true story.



Okay, that clears up a lot for me. Can you provide at least one book that you believe to be true? You can private message it to me if you'd like.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What about Pharaoh? Do you believe God hardened his heart?



Haven't studied it much, nor have I looked into context.  My initial reaction is that God wants everybody to go to heaven (1 Tim. 2:4).  That being the case, it would not make sense to condemn somebody specifically to make a point.  However, the interaction in the OT is very different, and I don't know what kind of treatment the folks got.

I think there is more to know about that story than to simply say "God made this fella bad."  I can do some study on it.  Always up for learning.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 4, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Okay, that clears up a lot for me. Can you provide at least one book that you believe to be true? You can private message it to me if you'd like.



We can do this out here if you like.  The NT, minus revelation.  Revelation, I beleive, is very metaphorical.  

I believe Job is a type of parable.  I have read some very great theories on it, one being that Job is a metaphor for Israel.  Another that Job is a representation of man's struggle against the sin nature.  

How does that position clear it up?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 4, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> That restraint and freedom can coexist.



Is intervention always restraint?  I believe Jesus is an act of intervention and an act of freedom.


----------



## Four (Apr 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Haven't studied it much, nor have I looked into context.  My initial reaction is that God wants everybody to go to heaven (1 Tim. 2:4).  That being the case, it would not make sense to condemn somebody specifically to make a point.  However, the interaction in the OT is very different, and I don't know what kind of treatment the folks got.
> 
> I think there is more to know about that story than to simply say "God made this fella bad."  I can do some study on it.  Always up for learning.



That's unfortunate.. so you believe timothy to be true?
How do you reconcile with 2 timothy 12?



			
				 2 timothy 12 said:
			
		

> I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 4, 2012)

Four said:


> That's unfortunate.. so you believe timothy to be true?
> How do you reconcile with 2 timothy 12?



Many modern churches have women singing in church, teaching Sunday school, etc.  I think there is some cultural aspects in that.  I am pretty particular with the Church needing to follow NT mandates (it doesn't make sense to me otherwise).  That being the case, I guess it means a woman can't be the "head" of the local church.  But I also don't beleive a man should be either.  It should be Jesus, and the NT is the context.  It gives a structure which should be followed.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 4, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Correct, I did not choose to worship him.
> 
> Interesting, but I do not see it that way.
> Again, I don't see it as pointless if it pleases God.



How do you see it then? Help me understand.  If there is no choice, you are not choosing to worship him,  that you have readily admitted. So if you are not choosing to worship him but yet you worship him, is he not using you to worship himself?


----------



## Four (Apr 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Many modern churches have women singing in church, teaching Sunday school, etc.  I think there is some cultural aspects in that.  I am pretty particular with the Church needing to follow NT mandates (it doesn't make sense to me otherwise).  That being the case, I guess it means a woman can't be the "head" of the local church.  But I also don't beleive a man should be either.  It should be Jesus, and the NT is the context.  It gives a structure which should be followed.



That command does not limit the scope to church. What about business leaders? Physicians? highs school teachers.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 4, 2012)

Four said:


> That command does not limit the scope to church. What about business leaders? Physicians? highs school teachers.



Again, there is some cultural implications there.  My kids are in a private Christian school (much better education).  They have women teachers and a woman principle.  I have no problem with that, and apparently, neither does the board full of fundamentalists.

I send my kids to this school, I have a woman boss, etc.  Never did I feel I was outside the boundaries of the NT in this department (I have made plenty of other mistakes, though).  So, long story short, I think that verse is specifically directed to the Church, and is a matter of organization.  Whether we like it or not, I believe the implication is that a woman cannot be the "head" pastor of a local congregation, and I believe that is how it is mostly interpretted today.  Culture plays a lot into it.  It could have been because women were not educated at the time, or various other reasons.  I don't know.......


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 4, 2012)

Asath said:


> So, thanks for the extended hijack



Perhaps "It's About Time" to edit the title of your threads and insert a topic. Sometimes it's the simple things that confound the wise.


----------



## Four (Apr 4, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Again, there is some cultural implications there.  My kids are in a private Christian school (much better education).  They have women teachers and a woman principle.  I have no problem with that, and apparently, neither does the board full of fundamentalists.
> 
> I send my kids to this school, I have a woman boss, etc.  Never did I feel I was outside the boundaries of the NT in this department (I have made plenty of other mistakes, though).  So, long story short, I think that verse is specifically directed to the Church, and is a matter of organization.  Whether we like it or not, I believe the implication is that a woman cannot be the "head" pastor of a local congregation, and I believe that is how it is mostly interpretted today.  Culture plays a lot into it.  It could have been because women were not educated at the time, or various other reasons.  I don't know.......



I thought the big protestant mantra was bible first (NT) and humans separate. Just because your church doesn't have a problem with it, and that it "seems ok" to you, doesn't change what the NT says. I'm not attacking you, i don't think your a bigot, i think your a good guy, i think you would be a good guy if you never even read the bible.

Here is a little large part of the quote, so we can get more context  It seems pretty clear, women should be subservient to men, dress modestly, and bear lots of children. 



			
				timothy said:
			
		

> I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
> 
> 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;* she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.*


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 4, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> So if you are not choosing to worship him but yet you worship him, is he not using you to worship himself?



I did not will or choose to worship him prior to the transformation. Now, I have no desire or will to not worship him. I do not see it as him worshiping himself but if that was to be the case, I have no issue with it.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 4, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I did not will or choose to worship him prior to the transformation. Now, I have no desire or will to not worship him. I do not see it as him worshiping himself but if that was to be the case, I have no issue with it.



If you do not see it as the case explain to me how you see it. Do you have a desire or will?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 4, 2012)

timothy said:


> A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet




That passage is obviously missing from Juanita Bynum's Bible:


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 4, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Do you have a desire or will?



Yes but I was made to be willing. It is an inward condition.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 4, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes but I was made to be willing. It is an inward condition.



Huh? That doesn't explain your position very well.  Is that will your own? Isn't implying that you were created to be willing, implying you have a choice? I don't see how you can reconcile having a will but not having a choice. It seems to me the two ideas are incompatible. You have no will if you have no choice, if you have no will you cannot be willing.  Puppets have no will, they are enabled by their masters will. It is his will that controls the puppets.  The puppets are not created to be willing, they are created to be enabled by their master.    

So which is it do we have a choice or not? How is he NOT worshipping himself?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 4, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Is that will your own?


No


> Isn't implying that you were created to be willing, implying you have a choice?


No choice or will of my own.


> I don't see how you can reconcile having a will but not having a choice.


I don't. Neither are my own.


> Puppets have no will, they are enabled by their masters will.


Correct.They are willed but it is not their own.


> It is his will that controls the puppets.  The puppets are not created to be willing, they are created to be enabled by their master.


Correct. Perhaps I was not clear on that. It is not my will and I don't have an issue with being a puppet.


> So which is it do we have a choice or not? How is he NOT worshipping himself?


 Like I said, if the creator enables or forces me to worship him and that somehow is him worshiping himself, I have no issue with that.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 4, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> No
> 
> No choice or will of my own.
> 
> Correct. Perhaps I was not clear on that. It is not my will and I don't have an issue with being a puppet.



How did you come to have a "belief" in Jesus and "accept" him as your savior? To believe or accept or to not believe or accept something is a choice. When your wife ask you if you want steak or seafood, your answer is God's, correct?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 4, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> No
> 
> No choice or will of my own.
> 
> ...



Do you vote?


----------



## Asath (Apr 4, 2012)

“Perhaps "It's About Time" to edit the title of your threads and insert a topic. Sometimes it's the simple things that confound the wise.”

Perhaps it’s about time for the persistent hijackers to quit cluttering up any and all topics by turning all attention from the topic at hand to themselves.  Intransigence is nobody’s fault but your own, and a desire to bluster rather than discuss earns one a place on the Ignore list.

Gentlemen, I would respectfully ask – no, implore – the genuinely thoughtful to refrain from feeding the trolls.  Thread after thread ends up side-tracked and derailed by the same thoughtless and endlessly repeated nonsense authored by the same thoughtless and endlessly proselytizing human metronomes.  Please do us all a favor, and ignore them.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 5, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Perhaps "It's About Time" to edit the title of your threads and insert a topic. Sometimes it's the simple things that confound the wise.”
> 
> Perhaps it’s about time for the persistent hijackers to quit cluttering up any and all topics by turning all attention from the topic at hand to themselves.  Intransigence is nobody’s fault but your own, and a desire to bluster rather than discuss earns one a place on the Ignore list.
> 
> Gentlemen, I would respectfully ask – no, implore – the genuinely thoughtful to refrain from feeding the trolls.  Thread after thread ends up side-tracked and derailed by the same thoughtless and endlessly repeated nonsense authored by the same thoughtless and endlessly proselytizing human metronomes.  Please do us all a favor, and ignore them.



Case, in point.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Futhermore if we have no free will, you are not choosing to worship him. Your worship is again his manifestation and he is by default worshiping himself. That just  doesnt sound bleak but even more pointless.



Believe it or not, I agree with you. If I didn't have free will I would not sin...being saved, I'd be perfect and will-less


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> My point was that any influence or interference by God, whether it be inspiration or guidance, as you suggest, would infringe upon and negate free will.



I believe that God intervenes on our behalf. I believe He can keep me from getting killed in a car wreck, if it is His will to do so. I also believe that if I choose to do something that I know isn't in His will for me, I can choose to do it anyway, that's what sin is. Missing the mark... the mark He has set forth for us. 

If you can tell me you are sinless, then I will believe that you have no free will and God chose you like He did Moses, or Jonah or Paul or anyone else He had to intervene with to make them do His will...they are the elect before they even had a choice to be of the elect, as we are. They couldn't choose Jesus....God chose them, they didn't chose God. We have Jesus now.  

Can God make us do His will? obviously He can. Does He always insist that we do? obviously He doesn't.....if He did none of us would ever sin. All of us would be tithing, all of us would be perfect....none of us would have to have bible study....nor would we even have to go to church.

But does He or can He intervene?....absolutely.

He is ruler of me. I don't know about you, but obviously He let's me sin of my own free will. It isn't His fault I sin, it's mine, that's why I ask forgiveness....eh?

Are you sinless?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> That passage is obviously missing from Juanita Bynum's Bible:



Back in the day, I loved Juanita Bynum....between her and TD Jakes, I was delivered from a lot of 'stuff'. Relationships, trying to find a husband, doing stuff and going places I shouldn't. I was very blessed by their ministry. I know Juanita backslid, but so did David in the bible, he killed somebody to take their wife. I don't necessarily admire the person, I admire the annointing.
Juanita Bynum actually worked under the headship of TD Jakes, just like Joyce Meyers ministry falls under the headship of her pastor.

Sometimes it takes a woman to talk to women and sometimes it takes a man to talk to women and vice versa. I went to Woman Thou Art Loosed in Tampa and was delivered from a lot of 'stuff', and then again to the singles convention in Winston, with No More Sheets and Noel Jones....who said don't answer that phone call that will cost you another year of your life (messing with ex's, etc).

This isn't directed to you mr. center (lol) I'm just saying. This is how God delivers us sometimes and how He intervenes.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

Four said:


> Here is a little large part of the quote, so we can get more context  It seems pretty clear, women should be subservient to men, dress modestly, and bear lots of children.



As far as Timothy goes, I believe he still had some OT teachings in him, just like Paul(Saul) did. 

The thing about what Timothy says though is that women should be submissive to their husbands, but the husbands are required to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.  So if your husband loves you as much as Christ loves the church then you would want to be submissive to your husband....ya know? If someone loves you THAT much you'll want to do anything for them.

My daughter says, that the reason she doesn't argue (she will discuss) but won't argue, if her husband says this or that, then she says, ok, it's on your head. You make the decision if  it's the wrong decision then it will be your fault...that makes her husband think twice, and she's submitted to him, also. All works out for her. See? And if he loves her like Christ loves the church, then he will be good and kind to her and consider her feelings.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 6, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> This isn't directed to you mr. center (lol) I'm just saying. This is how God delivers us sometimes and how He intervenes.



No offense taken.  I was only pointing out that JB is one woman who really doesn't need a microphone.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> No offense taken.  I was only pointing out that JB is one woman who really doesn't need a microphone.



No, she don't. That girl can sing, too.

My oldest granddaughter was about 9 at the time we went to the singles conference, I forgot what year, like 99 I suppose. But she and my daughter and I went, after a knockdown dragout, my daughter told me to get my # *$()@(*$#(* in the car...so I did...lol...we drove 2 hours to Winston. JB preached that 'Umpire in my Soul'.....(another life changing experience for me)....my granddaughter could preach every word of that, we listened to it so much. She'd stand up on the corner of my bed where she could hold on to a post and preach the heck outta that sermon, using a brush for a microphone. That young'un was delivered and didn't even know she was delivered....thank you Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 6, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> God chose you like He did Moses, or Jonah or Paul or anyone else He had to intervene with to make them do His will...they are the elect before they even had a choice to be of the elect, as we are. They couldn't choose Jesus....God chose them, they didn't chose God. We have Jesus now.



I've never thought about all those in the Bible being elected by God was before Jesus died on the cross.
Are there any Bible stories of anyone chosen/elected by God like Moses or Paul after Jesus died? Maybe Judas was the last.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've never thought about all those in the Bible being elected by God was before Jesus died on the cross.
> Are there any Bible stories of anyone chosen/elected by God like Moses or Paul after Jesus died? Maybe Judas was the last.



No Bible stories that I know of. But I do believe that God still chooses His elect....perhaps like Billy Graham or some other people that have made a profound effect on mankind. Martin Luther King was another one. He was not sinless and perfect though. But God chose to work thru Him, regardless of his sins. I don't think you have to be a great person for God to use you, you become a great person because God uses you, sometimes against what your 'real' free will is about....or maybe irregardless of your free will. I don't believe God does that to everyone, could you imagine 4million billy grahams? We are sheep we are not shepherds. We choose to follow Christ as a sheep. He says His sheep knows His voice and we follow....that's if we believe He is our shepherd not because He picked us out of the livestock barn. He says whosoever....

 God chooses/elects the shepherds to guard/guide the sheep...and everyone is not elected to be a leader. 

I don't doubt God's control or will over us, but I don't doubt my own free will either.....or i'd be a much better person than I am, ya know?


----------



## Asath (Apr 6, 2012)

Given that there appear to be no further thoughts of any kind, especially concerning the OP, I'll take the point as a given.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 6, 2012)

Asath said:


> Given that there appear to be no further thoughts of any kind, especially concerning the OP, I'll take the point as a given.



I'm sorry I think the whole thing is off topic. But sometimes you just gotta let'er rip.

I'll go back and read the original post and see if I have any 'total recall'...lol.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 7, 2012)

Asath said:


> Following onwards . . . Here is the part where Free-will, Societal Negation of religion-based strictures, and Human Pride coalesce into the next foundation-stone of theological assertions – Punishment and Justice.
> 
> If the Christian Revelation is true, then the topic here is of the utmost importance – God is angry with Man.  Why this ought to be so is not made entirely clear, and differs with just who is making the assertion, but without buying into this assertion (in whatever form it appears), there is no reason to accept the idea of eternal punishment.  Whatever the reason – UNLESS we ALL repent of it, and begin to Believe, our very eternity will be one of punishment.  Just WHAT we ought to repent of depends . . .
> 
> ...



Most of everything you said, is what I believe, I just find it hard to tell someone, that you either need to be 'saved' or live in dangnation forever. For me I choose to be where my Jesus is, and it's not that I want to tell you that if you don't believe the same thing, that you will be eternally seperated from God. I just believe that I will be if I don't choose Jesus. And I want you to be joyful and full of hope. But that's because that's what I have. Like teaching someone how to dance a certain dance. Not because I want you to break your leg because you can't dance as good as I can.

It's kinda like girl talk. Telling a girlfriend how to get over the heartache of a broken relationship. You want them to feel better and to get over it and realize that there is someone else. Or like telling them if they don't use protection that they will get pregnant or they could get a disease. It's the truth that I know. Even though they don't want to hear it. It's the truth that I believe.
They may never get pregnant, they may never get a disease, but we all know it is possible....and because it is possible I can't help but try to give them the tools they need to work with.

I don't want to think that if you don't choose Jesus that you will burn forever....I pray that you won't. I pray that you will get whatever the desires of your heart are. No matter what God you do or do not believe in. I hope the Hindus, the Muslems all get whatever it is that they believe they will get if they believe in their God.

I choose the God that I choose because I like the things that He has to offer me. And if I never see that then I hope that I will just die and be gone and never know the difference. I don't want 27 virgins, or to be reincarnated, etc etc. 

I am not here to condemn you, even though it may appear to be so, and I am human and have a need sometimes to defend myself by being harsh back. But it's like I want to share a new flavor of ice cream with you, or a new pair of skates, or a new cellphone or a new game....even though it may seem to you that I'm ignorant of the 'real' new cellphone or the 'real' new game and that you think I'm clueless....I'm not here to condemn you, but just to share with you.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I believe that God intervenes on our behalf. I believe He can keep me from getting killed in a car wreck, if it is His will to do so. I also believe that if I choose to do something that I know isn't in His will for me, I can choose to do it anyway, that's what sin is. Missing the mark... the mark He has set forth for us.
> 
> If you can tell me you are sinless, then I will believe that you have no free will and God chose you like He did Moses, or Jonah or Paul or anyone else He had to intervene with to make them do His will...they are the elect before they even had a choice to be of the elect, as we are. They couldn't choose Jesus....God chose them, they didn't chose God. We have Jesus now.
> 
> ...



With all respect, I can not read the above post and ignore your argument against free will.



mtnwoman said:


> Are you sinless?



In whose eyes?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 7, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> In whose eyes?



Do you ever sin? IF you do, is it God's will for you to do so? or is it your free will to sin?

If you don't sin, you're the first perfect person I've ever met besides Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Do you ever sin? IF you do, is it God's will for you to do so? or is it your free will to sin?
> 
> If you don't sin, you're the first perfect person I've ever met besides Jesus.



You've met Jesus? Tell us about his life and actions from the ages of 10yrs old to 30years old.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 7, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Do you ever sin?


Without further clarification, I can only answer "yes" and "no". That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


mtnwoman said:


> IF you do, is it God's will for you to do so?


Yes. If I can thwart His will, He ceases to be God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 7, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Without further clarification, I can only answer "yes" and "no". That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
> 
> Yes. If I can thwart His will, He ceases to be God.



It must be nice to go through life never having to make decisions or if you do make a decision knowing it was the only choice you had. You can never blame yourself for making a bad decision. You can eat whatever you want and not have to worry about the outcome. That has to be a real peace of mind to feel that way. Even if you sin it's still not your fault. 
We can throw away about half the Bible that teaches and commands us how to live as we have no choice. It was all planned out zillions of years ago. Praying will do no good except to do it because God said to. He knew you were going to pray and thank him. He's the one that made you do it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 8, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> It must be nice to go through life never having to make decisions or if you do make a decision knowing it was the only choice you had. You can never blame yourself for making a bad decision. You can eat whatever you want and not have to worry about the outcome. That has to be a real peace of mind to feel that way. Even if you sin it's still not your fault.
> We can throw away about half the Bible that teaches and commands us how to live as we have no choice. It was all planned out zillions of years ago. Praying will do no good except to do it because God said to. He knew you were going to pray and thank him. He's the one that made you do it.



I don't even think we'd need the teachings of the NT, if we didn't have free will. Jesus chooses us, that's it...eh? We will never sin or do anything outside of His will. So why all that teaching us how to live, if we don't even have a choice anyway, we are made to obey. That puts me into slavery, if you ask me. I don't have the will to be good in any kind of way, God twists my arm and makes me obey...alrighty then. That way if I do anything wrong it's all on God...no asking for forgiveness needed, ever....so we can skip the Lord's prayer, too. Don't know who that was for either, then.

Believe me, I want to have a clean heart, but I don't, I don't want to sin, but I do. I want to forgive people who hurt me and rip me off, but I cannot always seem to be able to do that. Course it's God fault that they sin against me by ripping me off. Thanks God I needed that money.....sigh.....so You don't really have my best interest in mind, it's only about You?....Lord help me Jesus to be perfect....even though I'll never see that day on this earth, that is why I need You and that is why You came to save me and cover me and defend me under the blood.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 8, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Without further clarification, I can only answer "yes" and "no". That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.*That I agree with. Is the yes part, your will or God's will that you sin?*
> 
> Yes. If I can thwart His will, He ceases to be God.


 So nobody sins unless God wills for them to? And nobody does good because our own will chooses to follow in the footsteps of Christ. You aren't good to your neighbors because it's the right thing to do because Christ says to, or you're just good to your neighbors because God forces you to do so? Why do we need the teaching of Jesus or why should we follow Him....bah bah....if God's gonna force us to do His will anyway?

I follow Christ because I love Him, not because God's will forces me to.

If I, in fact surrender to God, I do believe that He will convict me (HS) and keep me from doing things that I ought not do. And yes, I try to obey. I also believe that He will let us go on our own will to teach us a lesson. He doesn't force me to worship Him, I worship Him because I love Him....I think it's insulting to say you worship God because He makes us worship Him.....I believe with all that is within me that He wants us to love Him because He gave us Jesus and He wants us to choose Jesus, not because He forces us to do so.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You've met Jesus? Tell us about his life and actions from the ages of 10yrs old to 30years old.



Well I met Him in spirit. I mean really do you think I'm that old or are you just mocking me?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 8, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> With all respect, I can not read the above post and ignore your argument against free will.



Why not?

It is obvious that if we sin against others or do not do what Christ/God asks us to do, we are working on our own free will.

Do I believe that God has the power to change my free will into what He wills for me? Well of course I do. Does He always? No, or I'd be sinless in the flesh, I am not....I live in the flesh and in the spirit. So why can't you see that it can be two ways?
But I fail to see how my sins that I commit against what the teachings of the Bible says are God's will. They are my sins. If I didn't have freewill I would not sin. I don't see why that is so hard to comprehend. Are we covered for those sins? yes we are. Are we responsible for those sins? yes we are. Is it God's will for us to sin? no it is not, it is our own free will to sin. I cannot blame it on anyone else but myself.....I'd like to but I can't.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 8, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Well I met Him in spirit. I mean really do you think I'm that old or are you just mocking me?



I am not mocking you. I am holding you to your words. I am darn curious as to how you know Jesus was sinless even through you meeting him spiritually. What do you know about him before the age of 30?
Skim through your Bible and find the passages where he Harvested corn on the Sabbath, Constantly questioned and went against Mosaic Law, Physical assaults in the Temple, Instructs his Disciples to steal a colt.......
Read your very own Bible!


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 8, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> It must be nice to go through life never having to make decisions or if you do make a decision knowing it was the only choice you had. You can never blame yourself for making a bad decision. You can eat whatever you want and not have to worry about the outcome. That has to be a real peace of mind to feel that way. Even if you sin it's still not your fault.
> We can throw away about half the Bible that teaches and commands us how to live as we have no choice. It was all planned out zillions of years ago. Praying will do no good except to do it because God said to. He knew you were going to pray and thank him. He's the one that made you do it.



I thank you for your generosity in allowing me the other half of the Bible. That is more than some will permit. It appears, at least in that sense, we are on equal footing.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 8, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes. If I can thwart His will, He ceases to be God.



Gem, in light of the above statement do you also believe everybody goes to heaven?

2 Peter 3:9


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 8, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I thank you for your generosity in allowing me the other half of the Bible. That is more than some will permit. It appears, at least in that sense, we are on equal footing.



Gem, I felt like I came across a little hard on that last post and I apologize. I've read enough of the Bible and know there are a lot of denominations that believe in pre-election and pre-destiny. There are a lot of verses to back it up. That's one of those things people see differently like "once save always saved". I've about debated both of those topics enough.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 8, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Gem, I felt like I came across a little hard on that last post and I apologize. I've read enough of the Bible and know there are a lot of denominations that believe in pre-election and pre-destiny. There are a lot of verses to back it up. That's one of those things people see differently like "once save always saved". I've about debated both of those topics enough.



My problem with having debated it enough( and yes we have) but you see how that doctrine makes the unsaved think? It makes them think that they have no choice to even seek or check God out, that if He wants to save them, then He will. If that is the case then we don't need to preach the gospel to these people. They've already heard the gospel and know they don't want to worship a God who forces them and controls every move they make.

To me that's the danger in that doctrine.....is thinking that we don't have to do anything, God just picks us out of a crowd and He created everyone else to just perish....no wonder they have an attitude towards a supposedly 'merciful' God....or should I say a merciful but prejudiced God.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Gem, in light of the above statement do you also believe everybody goes to heaven?



If by "everybody", you are referring to all of mankind, no.

JB, I own a business. I choose seven of my employees to join me in the conference room. I close the door so that none of my employees outside the room can hear me. I say to them "Starting on Friday, each one of you is getting a raise in pay".

After the meeting, one of the seven is approached by one not invited to the meeting and asked "What did he say?"
The one of the seven replies "He said that starting on Friday, each one of you is getting a raise in pay."

Is that what I said? Yes 

There is going to be a lot of disappointment on Friday. 



JB0704 said:


> 2 Peter 3:9



Who was Peter addressing?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 9, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Who was Peter addressing?



It is my assumption that the word "all" means everybody.  I think I know where this is going, though.....


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It is my assumption that the word "all" means everybody.



And in my example, the seven knew that "each one of you" was directed at them. The one not privileged to the meeting assumed "each one of you" included him.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 9, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> And in my example, the seven knew that "each one of you" was directed at them. The one not privileged to the meeting assumed "each one of you" included him.



I follow what you are saying, and I knew what you were getting at, but we will disagree on the point.  I don't believe "all" was only inclusive of "the elect."  

A curious point to me is why God always has to get his will in order to be God.  I do not see that as a defining characteristic.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I follow what you are saying, and I knew what you were getting at, but we will disagree on the point.


Not sure how we can disagree on the point. You may disagree in the fairness of it, but remember, those are my employees.


JB0704 said:


> I don't believe "all" was only inclusive of "the elect."


In the context of 2 Peter 3:9, who is being addressed?  


JB0704 said:


> A curious point to me is why God always has to get his will in order to be God.  I do not see that as a defining characteristic.


This God?  "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:"


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I follow what you are saying, and I knew what you were getting at, but we will disagree on the point.  I don't believe "all" was only inclusive of "the elect."
> 
> A curious point to me is why God always has to get his will in order to be God.  I do not see that as a defining characteristic.





gemcgrew said:


> Not sure how we can disagree on the point. You may disagree in the fairness of it, but remember, those are my employees.
> 
> In the context of 2 Peter 3:9, who is being addressed?
> 
> This God?  "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:"



Don't you both think it's odd that here in this sub forum is the only place that you can discuss this issue civilly?   It's barely an apologetics discussion you're having.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 9, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Not sure how we can disagree on the point. You may disagree in the fairness of it, but remember, those are my employees.



We disagree on whether or not your example is an apples to apples comparison on how God addresses humanity.



gemcgrew said:


> In the context of 2 Peter 3:9, who is being addressed?.



It is written to Peter's "dear friends (2 Peter 3:1).  However I do not see that the statement is exclusive of those outside that identifier.  I view the term "all" as a universal qualifier in a conversation with those inclusive of "dear friends."




gemcgrew said:


> This God?  "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:"



What is the reference on that?  I will look into what is being said, and why.  That is important to understand context.  Was somebody asking God "why?"


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Don't you both think it's odd that here in this sub forum is the only place that you can discuss this issue civilly?.



Yes.



ambush80 said:


> It's barely and apologetics discussion you're having.



You trying to kick us out?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Don't you both think it's odd that here in this sub forum is the only place that you can discuss this issue civilly?   It's barely and apologetics discussion you're having.



Not odd at all. The Atheist I converse with, for the most part, are very civil and considerate. 

I think our discussion is within the context of the OP, at least in regards to free will, punishment and justice.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> You trying to kick us out?





gemcgrew said:


> Not odd at all. The Atheist I converse with, for the most part, are very civil and considerate.
> 
> I think our discussion is within the context of the OP, at least in regards to free will, punishment and justice.



My two cents:  

As it's written; without having to do any interpretation or speculation about what god would or wouldn't do, I think that Gem is reading the text like it's written.  

"Children of Abraham, what are you worshiping?"


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 9, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> We disagree on whether or not your example is an apples to apples comparison on how God addresses humanity.


It wasn't. It was an example of how I address particular employees within the organization. If I had been talking to all of my employees, "each one of you" applies to all of them. It is still limited in its use. The homeless man out back, even though he overheard me, will be disappointed on Friday.


JB0704 said:


> It is written to Peter's "dear friends (2 Peter 3:1).  However I do not see that the statement is exclusive of those outside that identifier.  I view the term "all" as a universal qualifier in a conversation with those inclusive of "dear friends."


Please see my example above. 


JB0704 said:


> What is the reference on that?


Isaiah 46


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 9, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> It wasn't. It was an example of how I address particular employees within the organization. If I had been talking to all of my employees, "each one of you" applies to all of them. It is still limited in its use. The homeless man out back, even though he overheard me, will be disappointed on Friday.



Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe your point was to demonstrate how "all" can not be inclusive of everybody, as in your example.  Then, we are left determining who is inclusive in "all" in the Bible.  For me, anyway, I believe "all" of God's creation would be included in the context, which in your example would be equivalent to your employees.

I know, you are equating your employees ot the elect.  But, in that same book, why are they supposed to make their election sure (2 Peter 1:10)?  Are you employed or not?



gemcgrew said:


> Please see my example above.



Thus the disagreement 



gemcgrew said:


> Isaiah 46



Went and read a few chapters before and after.....not sure what to make of it all.  It is a prophecy, where Isaiah is speaking directly to Israel about false prophets, Gods, etc.  If you read along, you will discover Israel not following God's teachings and disobeying his commands.  Not sure how that works in the non-free-will perspective.  

But, I am up for hearing about it.....


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 9, 2012)

In the original post Asath points out God's anger. There are several verses where God get's angry at individuals & groups. I don't see where people have a problem with God getting angry or upset or disgruntled or not satisfied with men. Isn't this the purpose of the ark? How can there be a "wrath of God" if he doesn't get angry?
Jesus who is the son of God also got angry. If you believe Jesus is also God in the flesh, how do you explain his anger? I guess you would say it was his human nature but either way you look at it, it was God getting angry. If God had enough control over Jesus to keep him from sinning or having sex, he could keep him from getting angry. His human bad traits never manifested so it was God getting angry.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 9, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> In the original post Asath points out God's anger. There are several verses where God get's angry at individuals & groups. I don't see where people have a problem with God getting angry or upset or disgruntled or not satisfied with men. Isn't this the purpose of the ark? How can there be a "wrath of God" if he doesn't get angry?
> Jesus who is the son of God also got angry. If you believe Jesus is also God in the flesh, how do you explain his anger? I guess you would say it was his human nature but either way you look at it, it was God getting angry. If God had enough control over Jesus to keep him from sinning or having sex, he could keep him from getting angry. His human bad traits never manifested so it was God getting angry.




This reminds me of a conversation I overheard where two people were talking about whether light sabres were made of laser light or plasma.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 10, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> This reminds me of a conversation I overheard where two people were talking about whether light sabres were made of laser light or plasma.



The point was that if Gem is correct in his perspective (which you have indicated that you agree with though you have no dog in the fight), then it is strange he (God) would get angry at man's actions which, if there is no free will, would have been caused by God.  He would have been punishing man for his (God's) deeds.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The point was that if Gem is correct in his perspective (which you have indicated that you agree with though you have no dog in the fight), then it is strange he (God) would get angry at man's actions which, if there is no free will, would have been caused by God.  He would have been punishing man for his (God's) deeds.



Didn't God harden Pharaoh's heart then punish him for it?


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Didn't God harden Pharaoh's heart then punish him for it?



So the story goes.....

I have not read a bunch about that story.  But, did God get angry about Pharaoh's heart being hardened?  Seems like, in the OT, he is upset about men doing things against his will.

I will look up the Pharaoh story and see what there is to see. In the OT there is a lot of stuff that might require a cultural perspective.  For instance, "the lord delivered the victory" might be as mundane a statement as "lord willing" is today.  Both might be a means of acknowledging God, but not a literal statement of intervention..


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2012)

God hardened Pharaoh's heart and in return Pharaoh would not free the people. Then Pharaoh was punished for not freeing the people.

I think there is a lot of the Bible that is not read by many.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Didn't God harden Pharaoh's heart then punish him for it?



This God? 

"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive."(Genesis 50:20)

"Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain."(Psalms 76:10)

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."(Isaiah 45:7)

"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?"(Amos 3:6)

"Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?"(Matthew 21:42) 

"But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled."(Acts 3:18)

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."(Romans 8:28)

"And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen."(Exodus 14:17)


----------



## bullethead (Apr 10, 2012)

That be the one!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 10, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The point was that if Gem is correct in his perspective (which you have indicated that you agree with though you have no dog in the fight), then it is strange he (God) would get angry at man's actions which, if there is no free will, would have been caused by God.  He would have been punishing man for his (God's) deeds.



My 'dog' is intellectual honesty.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 10, 2012)

bullethead said:


> God hardened Pharaoh's heart and in return Pharaoh would not free the people. Then Pharaoh was punished for not freeing the people.
> 
> I think there is a lot of the Bible that is not read by many.



God hardened Pharoah's heart because God knew that pharoah would never submit to God, not because that's what God chose for Pharoah. God wants us all to surrender to Him, but He knows who will and who won't, so He used Pharoah because He knew Pharoah never would, not because He chose for Pharoah not to. He knew what pharoah was gonna do. 
Does anyone honestly think that Pharoah ever had a soft heart towards God? No, that was never gonna happen.

What a twist.

Honestly you don't think, for an example, that God can keep your daughters from being raped by a man who God knew would never come to repentance?  How many times have any of us escaped harm or death by someone right around the corner to nail us? We don't know. If God could bring that person to salvation, you don't think He'd rather do that than to let them die? and perhaps rape or hurt His believers?

He let pharoah's heart be hardened and pharoah went against God and God says He will protect us against our enemies....who was pharoah at the time.

You all saying pharoah was 'almost' saved before God hardened His heart? I mean seriously.

God did the same thing i'd do....'leave my children alone or die'....how about you all?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> God hardened Pharoah's heart because God knew that pharoah would never submit to God


God knew Pharoah would never submit to Him and yet thought it necessary to harden the heart? So that Pharoah would never submit?



mtnwoman said:


> not because that's what God chose for Pharoah.


"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew 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." (Romans 9:17,18)


----------



## Four (Apr 11, 2012)

The evidence suggests, historically speaking that the Jews weren't really in Egypt in any significant number around that time, and that there was never an exodus. They certainly didn't build the pyramids, and very unlikely were slaves. Egypt didn't really have slaves, they had forced work camps for criminals and war prisoners, but they could earn credit to free themselves etc.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 11, 2012)

Four said:


> The evidence suggests, historically speaking that the Jews weren't really in Egypt in any significant number around that time, and that there was never an exodus. They certainly didn't build the pyramids, and very unlikely were slaves. Egypt didn't really have slaves, they had forced work camps for criminals and war prisoners, but they could earn credit to free themselves etc.



Four, it doesn't say that in the Bible......how can it be true?

The Pyramids were built mostly by paid workers who lived in and amongst the Egyptians in the towns. They were free to come and go. The criminals and war prisoners were like you say. In exchange for their labor they earned benefits and sometimes freedom. Most never attempted escape because they lived better than where they came from.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> God hardened Pharoah's heart because God knew that pharoah would never submit to God, not because that's what God chose for Pharoah. God wants us all to surrender to Him, but He knows who will and who won't, so He used Pharoah because He knew Pharoah never would, not because He chose for Pharoah not to. He knew what pharoah was gonna do.



So God knows who will & won't become a Christian? Isn't this the same thing Gemcrew has been saying? What about Pharoah's free will?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> So God knows who will & won't become a Christian? Isn't this the same thing Gemcrew has been saying? What about Pharoah's free will?



No gemcrew says God selects who He wants to save. He is all knowing and does know who will and who won't come to salvation. God knew Pharoah would never come to salvation.....but it isn't because God didn't pre-choose him. God chooses for all of us to be saved, He doesn't make us be saved, but He knows who will and who won't come to salvation by their own free will. Totally different than what Gem believes.....He believes God chose for Pharoah not to be saved....just because God foreknew Pharoah wouldn't be saved, God didn't make that choice, Pharoah made his own choice not to ever receive God.

He didn't harden pharoahs heart towards salvation, God hardened pharoahs heart to letting the Jews go....and God foreknew that Pharoah would forever be after the Jews, so God stopped pharoah by leading him down the path to destruction or maybe I should say by Pharoah's free will, went down the road to destruction. And the Jews have never been left alone, have they?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> God knew Pharoah would never submit to Him and yet thought it necessary to harden the heart? So that Pharoah would never submit?
> 
> *Pharoah lets the Jews go...God hardened pharoah's heart and pharoah changed his mind about letting the Jews go and went after them and was destroyed.*
> 
> ...



Some of y'all need to watch the Prince of Egypt...that's about as simple as it gets. Obviously the story of why Pharoahs heart was hardened is misunderstood. His heart was not hardened towards salvation, it was hardened against letting the Jews go.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> No gemscrew says God selects who He wants to save. He is all knowing and does know who will and who won't come to salvation.



If God already knows I won't come to salvation, how do I have a choice? If my sister prayed for me to accept Jesus, what good were her prayer do if God already knew I wouldn't?


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> If God already knows I won't come to salvation, how do I have a choice? If my sister prayed for me to accept Jesus, what good were her prayer do if God already knew I wouldn't?



I believe God knows everything about me. He even knows the number of hairs on my head, even after I pull a few out....lol. He knows when I will die, He knows if I will get cancer, He knew all about me before I was born, so He knows whether I will come to salvation or not. 

Your example, if God knows you aren't going to be saved, it isn't because He chose it, it's because He knew what you would choose. Again, God wants us all  to come to salvation it's an open invitation, by our own free will we can choose......but God preknows, not predestines that.

Your sister can pray all she wants...but ultimately it's up to you to come to salvation....God doesn't stop you or make you be saved, you choose that yourself......but God does know who will and who won't be saved....not by His choosing but by ours.

If that still doesn't make sense, I'll try again. I don't want you to be confused about what I'm saying.

Let me add this....do I believe there is an elect group, yes. Jesus for example, chose His disciples. God chose Saul, God chose Moses, and Noah and Jonah and they were like what we call puppits. But we are not all chosen for those things, obviously. Can God change anything He wants to? I believe He has the power to do anything He wants. But I do not believe that He forces us outside of our will, to love Him and accept Him.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I believe God knows everything about me. He even knows the number of hairs on my head, even after I pull a few out....lol. He knows when I will die, He knows if I will get cancer, He knew all about me before I was born, so He knows whether I will come to salvation or not.
> Can God change anything He wants to?



Are you saying God can change my life events like getting cancer or dying but there is nothing I can do to change my life events. Such as eating healthy or wearing a seat belt? If I have no control over my life, how can I accept Jesus and if God already knows I won't what's the point in me doing anything about it. I can just leave it all up to God.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The point was that if Gem is correct in his perspective (which you have indicated that you agree with though you have no dog in the fight), then it is strange he (God) would get angry at man's actions which, if there is no free will, would have been caused by God.  He would have been punishing man for his (God's) deeds.



Right on!!


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you saying God can change my life events like getting cancer or dying but there is nothing I can do to change my life events.*No, I'm not saying that at all.* Such as eating healthy or wearing a seat belt? If I have no control over my life, how can I accept Jesus and if God already knows I won't what's the point in me doing anything about it. I can just leave it all up to God.*No! That's what gems believes.*



Do you believe that God is all knowing? Do you believe the scripture that says He knows even the smallest of things, like even that the hairs on our head are numbered? Do you believe ultimately God 'can' (not necessarily will) but can and is powerful enough to do anything He wants to do? Like de-bang the world today if he wants to? Do you believe that God answers prayers? Do you believe God can heal you? Do you think God knows the future? Do you believe what was prophesied in the OT about Jesus came to pass exactly as God said it would?

If your answers are yes, then do you believe that God gives us choices if He wants to? Do you think He gave us 'rules' to go by and we have the choice to obey them or not? If He didn't give us choices and He preselected us, then He is forcing us to worship Him and obey Him and therefore since He has taken full mind control, none of us ever sin?

Just because God knows what's going to happen doesn't mean He is necessarily controlling everything we do, we would then be robots wouldn't we?

If something is going to happen to me and I'm going to die (let's don't curse me) at 100 yrs old, God already knows that's going to happen. Will He let it happen? probably. Could He stop it? of course He could,  because of prayer maybe. 

That's why I don't believe that God chooses for some to be saved/elected and some to be lost/condemned.
For example.....if you are not saved, and your sister prays for God to soften your heart or prays for you to get a word or a clue, you/yourself and you....can choose to be saved. God doesn't make that choice for you. God knows, because He's all knowing that you will or won't be saved. Can He, maybe because of your sister's prayer, have mercy on her and/or you give you an extra word/sign/whatever that convicts you to become saved?....remember I believe that Christ knocks at our heart, He wants to come in, the HS woes us to Him. Only our own free will can make the choice to choose the Saviour, God doesn't MAKE us come to salvation. Is everything there for your taking? yes.

Will God harden your heart towards Himself as gems says? no He will not. He calls you to Him, it's up to you to go or not. 

As far as having cancer etc, the only thing I can say about that is that God has given us rules/suggestions of what to do and what not to do with our bodies. Most of us know what things damage our bodies and if we can be obedient we can be much healthier. However the world is corrupt, can a crack baby have done anything to not be born a crack baby, no? Why does God let that happen? God gave the mama free will.

Sorry I'm trying to shorten this but can't seem to. So if it seems choppy I'm sorry. 

There is only so much we can do to better ourselves, our health etc, because of the way the world is.  Somewhere down my path, my soul and my spirit was seperated by the word of God...you know the verse....the Word of God is sharper than any twoedged sword, even to dividing soul and spirit.  My soul, me, myself and I, does not want to die and my soul (myself) is always doing something I shouldn't be doing either to harm myself or sin or whatever that's my free will. But my spirit is connected to God's spirit and my spirit longs to be with Him so I am not afraid to die and I don't even worry about events that 'could' happen to me. That's the part of me that abides in Him.

I have to live and suffer in this world, but my perfectness will never reside here....but in heaven we will be whole, healthy, happy.

I'll stop there. But if I didn't cover everything, I'll be glad to answer whatever thoughts you may have. It's hard talking online, I so wish I could talk to you face to face. We'd have a good ol' time!!


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> If God already knows I won't come to salvation, how do I have a choice? If my sister prayed for me to accept Jesus, what good were her prayer do if God already knew I wouldn't?



God knowing you will be saved and choosing for you to be saved are two different things. God knows everything....but He doesn't choose everything for you or you'd be perfect and sinless......and a robot.

If you aren't saved, and God knows you will be, it's because your sister prayed and you accepted salvation, not because He prechose you....He let you choose. How could we not accept, if we know Jesus is standing knocking at our heart's door? and He is. That's how God lets our hearts be 'softened' to His word.  But we can still deny and turn Him away. God knows how many times we will do that, too.  That's why we are called to preach/teach the gospel, so that everyone knows and has a choice....even though God already knows that everyone will not choose Him. He still sends us out into the world to reach those who will.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2012)

I'm still having trouble seeing how I have a choice if God already knows. If i go to my closet to choose between a red shirt and a green shirt and I choose the red shirt but God knew before I was born that I would choose the red shirt, did I really have a choice?

I guess I feel about it like this guy. The title is "What a Sovereign God Cannot Do" 
http://www.thebereancall.org/content/what-sovereign-god-cannot-do


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm still having trouble seeing how I have a choice if God already knows. If i go to my closet to choose between a red shirt and a green shirt and I choose the red shirt but God knew before I was born that I would choose the red shirt, did I really have a choice?
> 
> I guess I feel about it like this guy. The title is "What a Sovereign God Cannot Do"
> http://www.thebereancall.org/content/what-sovereign-god-cannot-do



You remember the thread I started about the elect? My son in law was  the reason I started that thread. He is thinking like you are now.

Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean He had it all planned out that way. IF He chooses though He can plan it out, I'm not saying He doesn't have the power, I'm saying He doesn't predestine everything to happen, even though He knows it will.

It's hard to come up with an example because no one or nothing else besides God is all knowing.
But let's just do this on a simple example.
Say I know that if I lay out of work tomorrow that I will be fired....and my boss knows it too because she told me. If I in fact lay out of work tomorrow, who chose to do that? It's on me, right? I chose it, it was my free will to lay out of work. I can't blame it on my boss even though she knew what would happen if I laid out one more time. It's my free will and my choice to lay out of work. So I got fired, my boss knew ahead of time that would happen, could she do anything to stop me? Was it a choice I made or can I blame it on her?

Another simple example......you know your childs favorite candy bar, but you bring several different ones home and you let that child pick his candy bar and bingo you were right, he picked what you knew he would pick. Did you cause him or make him pick that candy bar? Did you offer him mercy by choosing to offer him his favorite candy bar? But if he chose another one is that your intent or his?

If you look at things you would do for your children out of mercy, knowing them from the womb and what they will choose and how they will act.....God knows the same thing about us. Does your child do things he knows he will be punished for....why yes of course. Our Father knows that about us, too. Doesn't mean you chose your child to disobey, does it....isn't your will for your child to do what you say? But does he/she always abide by your will? No they work on their own free will, knowing what the punishment might be. But you still try to 'convict' them or tell them what to do and what not to do, being older you know consequences more than they do, right?
Do your children go outside of your will for them, no matter the consequence....I'm sure they do.  Just because you knew what would happen, does that make it your fault if they don't abide by your rules?  If they would only do what you say, they wouldn't get in trouble or get hurt or whatever.....just because you know the outcome....the child has free will to go against your will. Is that correct? 

Or are you able to be in full control of your children simply because you know the outcome if they follow thru with their actions? So they choose what you want them to choose, they do exactly what you say, they never mess up, they never do the wrong thing, simply because you are 'incharge'? If they do, that would make them perfect....are they? That ain't gonna happen. It doesn't happen with us either.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2012)

I've read all the candy bar &  ice cream analogies but those are logical guesses. That's totally different than 100% knowing the outcome. What do you think about the following statement?
If God knows all future events infallibly, then He cannot be
wrong about what will happen. If God cannot be wrong about what will happen, it seems
we are determined to do the things God knows that we will do. For if we did that which
God knew we would not do, then God would not have known infallibly. But this is to
deny God’s omniscience. Since God is omniscient, we are determined to act in
accordance with His knowledge. This immediately brings into question the reality of
human free will.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 11, 2012)

Does God know the future to the point that he can't control it? 
Why would God get angry or marvel at something if he knew the future? If he already knew what Adam & Eve would do, why didn't he call the whole thing off? God was grieved by peoples actions. God changed his mind which would be hard if he already knew what the outcome would be.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

All I can do now artfuldodger is pray for your eyes to be open to the truth. And I hope that you will pray for your eyes to be opened to understand.....open the eyes of your heart, Lord.

I sense a totally different spirit in you that I've never seen before and I'm not saying it is wrong or evil. You just seem to have changed in some way. And that's ok. I just have a conviction of that.

I know that I have free will, because if I didn't I wouldn't be able to commit the sins that I do. If I didn't have free will I wouldn't need Jesus to die on the cross for my sins. If God prechose me, then I would be perfect and sinless and I am not.....I'm just forgiven.....no matter the choices I make. God does not make the sinful choices for me, that I make.

God loves us and wants us to love Him, and His Son....why on earth would He want to force/choose/make us love Him beyond our free will? He is all powerful and He could do that, but why would He sacrifice His only Son, if He could just choose for us to love Him anyway? Wouldn't that make the crusifixtion be worthless? He could just choose me and you and let Jesus live, because we were already saved anyway? ie I don't really want to love Jesus because He died for my sins, but God made me, so I have no choice....and there are some who do want to love Jesus that God chose to perish?....sorry charlie?...God didn't love you as much as He loved me.

Blessings to you my friend, in your journey for the truth.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 11, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Does God know the future to the point that he can't control it? *If He chooses to, for example, Moses, Abraham, David, Saul, Jonah*
> Why would God get angry or marvel at something if he knew the future?*Because He gave us free will and we didn't 'mind' Him.* If he already knew what Adam & Eve would do, why didn't he call the whole thing off?*Because He had given them free will.* God was grieved by peoples actions. God changed his mind which would be hard if he already knew what the outcome would be.


 God didn't change His mind, He gave us free will and we disappointed Him....but He is faithful to His word that we have free will.

If adam and eve did not have free will, why did they do what they did....God chose paradise for them, they chose something else. And of course God was angry, He created a perfect garden and adam and eve declined it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> All I can do now artfuldodger is pray for your eyes to be open to the truth. And I hope that you will pray for your eyes to be opened to understand.....open the eyes of your heart, Lord.
> I sense a totally different spirit in you that I've never seen before and I'm not saying it is wrong or evil. You just seem to have changed in some way. And that's ok. I just have a conviction of that.
> Blessings to you my friend, in your journey for the truth.



Not a totally different spirit in me, just me trying to work through this journey for the truth. I'm just trying to figure out how God could be happy, grieved, angry, or well pleased with us if he already knew the answer? I've read that those are just words to give God human characteristics that we can understand. I've also read that since we are made in the image of God, we have the same characteristics of God. Did you read my link about God's limited sovereignty? Here is an example where God was "well pleased".
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I do appreciate your words of encouragement and views on this and other topics. I've said before, i can see Gemcrews views on this and somehow get torn between his views, your views, and my views. I'm do believe in free will though. I think God has free will , Satan has free will, and we have free will.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 12, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not a totally different spirit in me, just me trying to work through this journey for the truth. I'm just trying to figure out how God could be happy, grieved, angry, or well pleased with us if he already knew the answer? I've read that those are just words to give God human characteristics that we can understand. I've also read that since we are made in the image of God, we have the same characteristics of God. Did you read my link about God's limited sovereignty? Here is an example where God was "well pleased".
> Matthew 3:17
> And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
> 
> I do appreciate your words of encouragement and views on this and other topics. I've said before, i can see Gemcrews views on this and somehow get torn between his views, your views, and my views. I'm do believe in free will though. I think God has free will , Satan has free will, and we have free will.



Ok, gotcha


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 12, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Ok, gotcha



Your view on God knowing but not controlling is something i've been praying on today. I'll do some soul searching and get back with you on that. I'm not even remotely thinking of heading over to the pre-election camp.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 13, 2012)

Art read and ponder on this...this was written at least 400 yrs before christ was born. Who do you think this is refering to? How did someone predict this 400 yrs before it happened? Was it predestined? Why was it predestined? Do you think that I am predestined to accomplish something like this? Do you think you are? I know I am not....I'm simple....God only ask me yes or no questions...do you believe? and I said yes. No grandious that I am special, that I am elected into a special  task, ie preaching, teaching, being a missionary or die on the cross for all. I'm just a sheep, a dumb sheep that follows Christ because I chose to. I wish I could say that I'm prechosen to be a Paul or a Jonah, or a Moses or any other chosen/elected for a special cause ....but I'm not I'm just a sheep....and I fell in line to follow my saviour. But I know His voice and I follow...I'm thankful I had sense enough to come to Jesus, and just be a sheep.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&version=KJV

I mean, honestly am I prechosen to do that? Who thinks they can be compared to that. I know I am not. I was blessed to hear the gospel and ask a yes or no question....do you believe? and my answer was yes. I am no greater or special than that...and I'm thankful to be just a sheep.
People that are elected are elected to a special position...elected into authority over others....right or wrong?  Elected to be president, elected to be govenor, elected to rule over something....I am not. God said circle the wagons and I fell in line.


----------



## gen273 (Apr 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> No gemcrew says God selects who He wants to save. He is all knowing and does know who will and who won't come to salvation. God knew Pharoah would never come to salvation.....but it isn't because God didn't pre-choose him. God chooses for all of us to be saved, He doesn't make us be saved, but He knows who will and who won't come to salvation by their own free will. Totally different than what Gem believes.....He believes God chose for Pharoah not to be saved....just because God foreknew Pharoah wouldn't be saved, God didn't make that choice, Pharoah made his own choice not to ever receive God.
> 
> He didn't harden pharoahs heart towards salvation, God hardened pharoahs heart to letting the Jews go....and God foreknew that Pharoah would forever be after the Jews, so God stopped pharoah by leading him down the path to destruction or maybe I should say by Pharoah's free will, went down the road to destruction. And the Jews have never been left alone, have they?




Certainly you believe in H***....If God chooses all of us to be saved, then you are saying that God is a failure.  My God does not fail... If He chooses someone to be saved then there is no option.  
Law of Condemnation= We ALL deserve H*** from the beginning....but only by His grace do we RECEIVE the GIFT of salvation
Unfortunately, human emotion gets in the way of these Doctrinal Truths.


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Some of y'all need to watch the Prince of Egypt...that's about as simple as it gets.



With all respect, suggesting that we watch a movie in order to gain understanding of Scripture, is troubling.



mtnwoman said:


> His heart was not hardened towards salvation, it was hardened against letting the Jews go.



And goodbye free will.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 13, 2012)

gen273 said:


> Certainly you believe in H***....If God chooses all of us to be saved, then you are saying that God is a failure.  My God does not fail... If He chooses someone to be saved then there is no option.
> Law of Condemnation= We ALL deserve H*** from the beginning....but only by His grace do we RECEIVE the GIFT of salvation
> Unfortunately, human emotion gets in the way of these Doctrinal Truths.



Looks like gemcgrew has some like-minded company.

Anyway, I think the Calvinist / free-will divide boils down to what we believe about the nature of God.  For instance, one side will say if we have a will, God ceases to be God.  The other says, if we do not have a will, God ceases to be benevolent and just.  I do not see the two sides as reconcilable.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

I believe in free will but God can intervene if he wants too. I believe God can see all but prefers to wear blinders and just check up on us from time to time. This is what I did with my daughters as teenagers. I had to have enough trust to let them make their on choices. I could have monitored their web browsing, e-mail, tracked their car with gps etc. but I chose not to. I did check up on them from time to time but I didn't micro-manage thier lives.
I don't think God looks at every minute detail of everyones future. I don't think he knows who will and won't become a Christian.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Looks like gemcgrew has some like-minded company.QUOTE]
> 
> He has a lot of like-minded company. My mom says her Baptist sunday School teacher is starting to lean that way.
> I'm staying in the Free-will camp.


----------



## pjmax (Apr 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> This reminds me of a conversation I overheard where two people were talking about whether light sabres were made of laser light or plasma.



Who won?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 13, 2012)

gen273 said:


> Certainly you believe in H***....If God chooses all of us to be saved, then you are saying that God is a failure.  My God does not fail... If He chooses someone to be saved then there is no option.
> Law of Condemnation= We ALL deserve H*** from the beginning....but only by His grace do we RECEIVE the GIFT of salvation
> Unfortunately, human emotion gets in the way of these Doctrinal Truths.



How about this, God _desires_ everyone to be saved. He does not force His desire on mankind because He loves us. There is no Agape with that which is forced.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I believe in free will but God can intervene if he wants too. I believe God can see all but prefers to wear blinders  and just check up on us from time to time.This is what I did with my daughters as teenagers. I had to have enough trust to let them make their on choices. I could have monitored their web browsing, e-mail, tracked their car with gps etc. but I chose not to. I did check up on them from time to time but I didn't micro-manage thier lives.
> I don't think God looks at every minute detail of everyones future. I don't think he knows who will and won't become a Christian.



So he CAN make a rock so big he can't lift it?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So he CAN make a rock so big he can't lift it?




Does God know the future to the point that he can't control it?

If God can know what our choices in the future will be without causing those choices then he can put on blinders and not look. I can lift anything that weighs less than 50 pounds. That doesn't mean that I have lifted everything that weighs less than 50 pounds. God is like Superman, as someone else compared him to. He can turn his super powers off. He can intervene or see whatever he wants to. I'm just taking it one step farther than the intervening part by adding "seeing". Most Christians think he can turn off his "intervening" powers if he wants to but he can't turn off his "seeing" powers. I'm saying he can.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Does God know the future to the point that he can't control it?
> 
> If God can know what our choices in the future will be without causing those choices then he can put on blinders and not look. I can lift anything that weighs less than 50 pounds. That doesn't mean that I have lifted everything that weighs less than 50 pounds. God is like Superman, as someone else compared him to. He can turn his super powers off. He can intervene or see whatever he wants to. I'm just taking it one step farther than the intervening part by adding "seeing". Most Christians think he can turn off his "intervening" powers if he wants to but he can't turn off his "seeing" powers. I'm saying he can.




That was me.  Superman can fly any time he wants to but sometimes he just walks.    Why would he do that?  Why not just hover an inch off the ground?  It doesn't seem like it takes him more effort to fly.  Maybe it does.  He grimaces when he tries to go super fast in the movies.

I know why you think God must be turning off his omniscience super powers.  It's because if he didn't then there is no free will.    That wouldn't be fair.  He wouldn't do anything that we might find unfair now, would he?

This is an interesting exercise to me. If there was a superman, what would he be like?  What kinds of things would he do?  If there were light sabres, would they be made of plasma or laser light?  Can you really escape the pull of a black hole by jettisoning the Enterprise's reactor core and exploding it?  What would Jesus do?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Does God know the future to the point that he can't control it?


"But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased."(Psalms 115:3)
"Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places."(Psalms 135:6)
"The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:"(Isaiah 14:24)
"For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?"(Isaiah 14:27)


Artfuldodger said:


> God is like Superman, as someone else compared him to. He can turn his super powers off. He can intervene or see whatever he wants to.


It would appear, in your analogy, that man's free will is to God, what kryptonite is to Superman.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> That was me.:
> I know why you think God must be turning off his omniscience super powers.  It's because if he didn't then there is no free will.    That wouldn't be fair.  He wouldn't do anything that we might find unfair now, would he?



That's the only way I can see "free will" happening. We still don't have total free will but limited free will because God intervenes when he wants to. Now when & why he intervenes, I don't know. It could be to help us, punish us, or lead us down a certain path.

Your response was interesting to say the least.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> "But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased."(Psalms 115:3)
> "Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places."(Psalms 135:6)
> "The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:"(Isaiah 14:24)
> "For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?"(Isaiah 14:27)
> ...



God can still do whatsoever he pleases with my limited free will. I don't think I have complete and total free will. I'm not following your kryptonite analogy, why would my free will weaken God's power? He can take over anytime he wants to. If anything it proves he has more power. There is more to God than just power. He has other attributes such as love, anger, jealousy, infinity, etc.

This is from the link I posted earlier:
It actually diminishes God's sovereignty to suggest that He cannot use to His own purposes what He doesn't foreordain and originate. There is neither logical nor biblical reason why a sovereign God by His own sovereign design could not allow creatures made in His image the freedom of genuine moral choice. And there are compelling reasons why He would do so.

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/what-sovereign-god-cannot-do


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> How about this, God _desires_ everyone to be saved. He does not force His desire on mankind because He loves us. There is no Agape with that which is forced.



I am so happy that God called me nigh.


listen to the the whole thing, i was surprised....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aO1ge8ASZQ


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So he CAN make a rock so big he can't lift it?



Oh my gosh....who cares????? I'm glad that's all you have to worry about...truly you are blessed!!


----------



## Asath (Apr 13, 2012)

“It actually diminishes God's sovereignty to suggest that He cannot use to His own purposes what He doesn't foreordain and originate.”

Excuse me?  The assertion on the table is that this God that is imagined diminished his OWN sovereignty if such a thing as free-will was ‘Granted.’  It cannot be both.  If He didn’t, in fact, “foreordain and originate,” and allowed things to go on without His oversight, then there is no place to put the assertion of that oversight.  God either ‘originated and oversees’ ALL things, or he does not.  IF there are things that HE did not ordain and originate, and cannot oversee and either allow to happen or prevent, then the idea of God using things “to His own purposes” places this God in the position of a sadistic, manipulative mad scientist toying with an ant-farm for the sheer entertainment value of seeing what will happen next.

There is no room in the modern conception of a God for the idea of things that  “He doesn't foreordain and originate.”  None.  Nobody forced anyone to come up with this idea of a brand-new God, replacing all of the other, older Gods, who were eagerly cast aside.  So this new God is either EVERYTHING He is purported to be, or He is not.  The supernatural, were it to exist, would hardly be subject to our ‘interpretations’ of just what it might be.  

‘Sovereignty’ is just that – the concept cannot allow for exceptions, no matter how far one wishes to strain the thought. 

“There is neither logical nor biblical reason why a sovereign God by His own sovereign design could not allow creatures made in His image the freedom of genuine moral choice.”

There is so much in that single sentence that is wrong that I am almost moved to despair.  Let us try this one on – IF it is asserted, and it is, that all of morality was handed down by this God, then there can BE no choice.  What would be the point, again, other than the sheer supernatural entertainment value, like watching rats in a maze.  One, in this scenario, is forced to imagine a God who is looking down at each and every one of us and laughing his head off whenever someone takes a wrong turn.  “Ha!  Gotcha!”  That isn’t ‘sovereignty,’ or ‘design,’ or even ‘choice.’  That is heavenly sadism.  If one imagines, as many do, that this God is looking out for them, personally, then He is doing a darned poor job of it.

The ‘logical’ reason why a God would not allow choice is the assertion of a God itself.  The very ideas of ‘sovereignty,’ ‘freedom,’ ‘choice,’ are antithetical to the God that is proposed.  These things cannot coexist.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> God can still do whatsoever he pleases with my limited free will. I don't think I have complete and total free will. I'm not following your kryptonite analogy, why would my free will weaken God's power? He can take over anytime he wants to. If anything it proves he has more power. There is more to God than just power. He has other attributes such as love, anger, jealousy, infinity, etc.
> 
> This is from the link I posted earlier:
> It actually diminishes God's sovereignty to suggest that He cannot use to His own purposes what He doesn't foreordain and originate. There is neither logical nor biblical reason why a sovereign God by His own sovereign design could not allow creatures made in His image the freedom of genuine moral choice. And there are compelling reasons why He would do so.
> ...



Amen!!!!!! God can do anything He wants to do....why do we sort Him into our manmade boxes? He doesn't fit, He is beyond anything that any of us can even explain, much less prove.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> That's the only way I can see "free will" happening. We still don't have total free will but limited free will because God intervenes when he wants to. Now when & why he intervenes, I don't know. It could be to help us, punish us, or lead us down a certain path.
> 
> Your response was interesting to say the least.



Are you 2 people in 1? or 2 people?


I agree!!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 14, 2012)

Why did God create man? I think it is more like "Why do couples have children" than let me create a giant ant farm for amusement.
I found this excerpt:

Isaiah 43:7 is where it says God created us for His own glory. Philosophically it is not egotistic because of who He is - He merits our worship.
God created us because He wanted to experience the joy that comes from our relationship with Him. God says that He "delights" in us in Isaiah 62:4, 65:18-19, and Zeph 3:17. Just as we enjoy being His children and interacting with Him, He enjoys being our Father and interacting with us. Again, the parent analogy might be the best reference point. Children bring us tremendous joy (and the potential for tremendous pain). In general, we do not *need* children. But we delight in them and take great joy from the experience of parenthood. 
Another specific purpose in scripture for God making man was so that we would rule over all the rest of His creation here on earth. (Gen 1:26-28) He wanted someone filling that role in His creation, so He created mankind in His image to do that. Almost as if it required someone made "in His image" to pull that off.


----------



## Asath (Apr 15, 2012)

"How about this, God desires everyone to be saved. He does not force His desire on mankind because He loves us. There is no Agape with that which is forced."

Amazing. May I ask a simple question?  'Saved' from what, and 'saved' for what? (Also --'Saved' BY what?)

If this God created EVERYTHING, then it would be unavoidable but to conclude that whatever you claim we need to be 'Saved' from is part of that self-same 'Creation.'  That seems to be a rather sadistic outlook.  "Okay, I think I'll MAKE people in MY image, then put them in a rat-maze of endless contradictions and see how few of them actually get to eat the cheese.  The losers burn for eternity."

C'mon.  The very central proposal of modern Christianity -- that whole part about helping and caring and being compassionate and forgiving, as a hair-shirt apology for the behavior of your ancestors -- is immediately contradicted if there is ANY counter-proposal that excludes anyone at all and punishes them.  One cannot be both forgiving and vindictive in the same breath.  The very idea negates itself.

"Why did God create man?"

He didn't. Asking a fictitious question, then answering it on your own imaginative authority belongs in the realm of fantasy.  You leap ahead of the facts -- 'WHY did God create man?' assumes that he did, and that particular assumption is not in evidence.  Show us first that the God you propose DID create man, before you begin assigning this God the motives for that act that are yours alone.  Do you truly propose that your position is such that you may explain not only Creation itself, but the REASONS WHY your supernatural CREATOR acted?  This seems like a pretty big leap -- from being one of the CREATED, according to solely religious doctrine, to an intimate knowledge of exactly WHY you are here.  Is there something that you simply KNOW, as a gift, that the rest of us were left out of?

I suggest, yet again, that if someone wishes to rely on this GOD as their own personal authority, it might be nice to demonstrate in some unambiguous fashion that such a thing actually exists. In this forum we deal in the empirical, and do not take assertions as factual until they are demonstrated to be so. Speaking for myself, I'd rather not have a Heart Surgeon tell me all about what he 'Believes.'  What he knows is far more important.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 15, 2012)

I do not know "the meaning of life". I have no insider information neither does anyone else. This is why one must form their own beliefs. I don't no why God made us. You're not the first to ask the question "why did God create us to sin so that he could send himself incarnated as Jesus to save us?"
I do not know the answer to that either other than not believing in predestination, meaning God didn't know we were going to sin.


----------



## Asath (Apr 15, 2012)

Wait a minute – if this God created everything, then SIN is one of those creations.  

Isn’t it?  Or did SIN originate someplace outside of this God’s purview, and pop unexpectedly into the perfect world He created?

And, again, if one is forming one’s own beliefs, then one’s religion, by definition, is not Christianity, it is the religion of You.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 16, 2012)

Asath said:


> Wait a minute – if this God created everything, then SIN is one of those creations. .



I believe we have covered this a good bit.  But, evil exists as a circumstance of free will, or a choice with good as an option.  If good is the only option, then no choice exists, and no free will exists.  It does not mean that evil is by design intent.  Just a natural circumstance of existence. 



Asath said:


> And, again, if one is forming one’s own beliefs, then one’s religion, by definition, is not Christianity, it is the religion of You.



Doesn't that depend on what basis the belief's are formed?


----------



## Asath (Apr 16, 2012)

“But, evil exists as a circumstance of free will, or a choice with good as an option.”

Um?  So EVIL, that that nasty old bug-a-boo, exists as a CONSEQUENCE of free-will?  Once the benevolent spirit in the sky GAVE us free-will, WE invented EVIL, in a Creation that had previously contained no such options, because it was perfect?  

So I guess that asking if anyone knows just which of the Six Days of Creation was the one on which EVIL was created isn’t worth asking.  We have the answer – WE Created EVIL, through the mechanism of having been GIVEN free-will.

Are you sure about this?  And you’ve thought it through?

Let us try this one on according to the Good Book: Hard and fast Law, made as a Commandment:  Thou Shalt Not Kill.  Ecclesiastes 3:  . . . (3)” a time to kill, and a time to heal; . . . “

And not to put too fine a point on it, but if by having been Given free-will we were put in the position of being able to CREATE anything new, then that thought alone negates the idea of a God as the Creator.  If, by the extension of the freedom that it is proposed we never had until the moment it was Granted to us, we were also handed the ability to add new stuff (EVIL) to the already fully formed CREATION, then what you are proposing is that we were given God-like power, in the context of a scenario in which it is ONLY God who CREATED.  If WE can Create too, then what do we need a God for, since we already have the most advanced of His abilities?

“Doesn't that depend on what basis the belief's are formed?”

No.  It doesn’t.  Forming a ‘belief’ is ALWAYS based on the same thing – an inability, or unwillingness, to either face the facts or look into them further.  If the ‘information’ one had rammed down their throats as children is still sufficient to inform their view of the world as adults then they have made a choice – in my opinion not a very brave, thoughtful, intelligent, or well-considered choice – but I understand that learning stuff isn’t for everyone – it is pretty tough, and requires an adaptable attitude and an openness to new developments, as well as a nearly single-minded fascination with knowledge itself.  There is not a single ‘Belief’ that can stand against the facts, which is why ‘Belief’ has been steadily eroded by progress.  Not everyone can be intimidated into stopping where the ‘believers’ have stopped, and deciding that nothing new needs to be known.

And thank goodness for that – because if we had listened to the dogma of all of the collective Believers along the way, and done things the way THEY demanded, at sword-point, we wouldn’t have these computers available so that we could argue the thought.  Face it:  ‘Belief,’ by the nature of the beast, intends to arrest thought, and lock it into a prison of only the ‘Believer’s’ making.


----------



## Israel (Aug 18, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Don't you both think it's odd that here in this sub forum is the only place that you can discuss this issue civilly?   It's barely an apologetics discussion you're having.



I don't find it odd, at all, after these readings, and being here for a very little while, myself.
The atheist, in some ways perhaps, is able to accept this "truth" in himself when confronted with the notion of "God" (and particularly Jesus being _the_ Christ)..."For me to believe _that_ would leave me...well...not being me"
Yes.
The transformation is no less _than that..._

And it always remains that. At least to such a point as spoken of when one will "know" as one is known.
That point, that bothersome, nettling, confounding within "I am known better than I know myself"...often provokes us to try to hold the ground upon which each of us stands, individually. We seem to like very much, "feeling" distinct, and spend much time in making sure our distinctions are known. I don't doubt I am easily accused of that.
But to discover we are all upon common ground is a work, indeed. It simply is not my own. "Work".
But, regardless, to be brought to see one who has refused to let go of the commonness to us all, even that particular commonness, (and herein is the mystery) "I will be like them in every way, I will not seek to distinguish myself...even in the avoiding of death to myself...but submit..."
Well, that is still only _the part_.

The point of all, remains what no man can bring himself to believe...the resurrection.
On it hangs all the matter of faith, insomuch that a brother oft quoted, oft referred, often mouthed, understood, unless it be true, all of "our" faith is in vain.
Yes, I am confident this statement of his came through much seeming doubt and experience of seeming contradiction. I don't think it was a musing about random questions, a nostrum for the weak minded to be dispensed to keep "them" in line.
It is the signal object and truth of our being...or it is not.

In simpler terms, the "if...then" may go something like this.
If Christ is raised, then all other bets are off.
Yes, it opens to the one who confesses the truth of it, made true to him by another, no less a changing than for the most reluctant of "atheist".
The seeming appearance of things, that I can well imagine the atheist resists if perceiving the approach as ''Hey buddy, you have to change to a believer" has an odious repugnance if the so called believer does not also embrace the "all other bets are off" part of the "if...then".
Perhaps rightly the "atheist" says "hey, why do I have to change, what about you?"
If the truth in the "believer" is less than the common ground secured by One, for all in his heart, something less, or something other...that would provoke this response "Well, I already have, _I already did that_"...then, perhaps, he does not yet know as he ought to know.
You see, the change is common to us all, complete and utterly upsetting to us "all", no less the claiming believer, than again, the most reluctant of resisters. 
The believer, so to speak, is no less confronted by the "if...then" than anyone else.
If Christ be raised, I will change, I must change, for it changes all...and the me I know now, of myself, I must count as good as gone.
But, I ask, you ask, we all ask, "if I change, then what becomes of the "me"? Must I really cease to myself?
The resurrection.
Everything is already changed.
Everyone is as good as gone to themselves, there is only common ground.
And all, resistance and proclamations of compliance, of being something another is not, is changed.
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for it.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 18, 2014)

Israel said:


> I don't find it odd, at all, after these readings, and being here for a very little while, myself.
> The atheist, in some ways perhaps, is able to accept this "truth" in himself when confronted with the notion of "God" (and particularly Jesus being _the_ Christ)..."For me to believe _that_ would leave me...well...not being me"
> Yes.
> The transformation is no less _than that..._
> ...



Help me out here. In the hopes of letting me understand you better, please highlight in blue the portion of your post which is NOT pure, unfounded assertion.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 18, 2014)

This thread is almost 2 years old......I wonder if Asath still reads along without participating.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 18, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> This thread is almost 2 years old......



The last time I posted in this thread, I still had hopes of Obama's defeat.


----------



## Israel (Aug 18, 2014)

I like the classics? 
Apart from the lame concession to humor I would ask only one more.
By explanation.
The response/assertions/words...found their place in a question I may have interpreted wrongly, as addressed to others (but the wrong may have begun in my assumption/presumption of response).



> Don't you both think it's odd that here in this sub forum is the only place that you can discuss this issue civilly? It's barely an apologetics discussion you're having.



I already see my error in that I perceived a civility being extended that was more an indulgence being acknowledged. 
I mistook forbearance, and presumed upon it.
My error.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 18, 2014)

Israel said:


> I like the classics?
> Apart from the lame concession to humor I would ask only one more.
> By explanation.
> The response/assertions/words...found their place in a question I may have interpreted wrongly, as addressed to others (but the wrong may have begun in my assumption/presumption of response).
> ...



It was just an observation about how this kind of discussion gets all heated upstairs and that Christians of more progressive thought find it more comfortable to discuss certain things down here in heathen land.


----------



## Israel (Aug 18, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> It was just an observation about how this kind of discussion gets all heated upstairs and that Christians of more progressive thought find it more comfortable to discuss certain things down here in heathen land.


That was my understanding.


----------



## Israel (Aug 18, 2014)

Asath said:


> “But, evil exists as a circumstance of free will, or a choice with good as an option.”
> 
> Um?  So EVIL, that that nasty old bug-a-boo, exists as a CONSEQUENCE of free-will?  Once the benevolent spirit in the sky GAVE us free-will, WE invented EVIL, in a Creation that had previously contained no such options, because it was perfect?
> 
> ...


 
And so it comes to this, as it always has and must.
The moral superiority claimed.
The braver...
The smarter...
The more creative...
The more diligent...
Even in devotion...to learning and knowledge, more pious.

And some still wonder, "does man need saving"?


----------

