# Predestination from the Atheist view.



## ambush80

Lets start with Webster:


_predestination
noun pre·des·ti·na·tion \(ËŒ)prÄ“-ËŒdes-tÉ™-ËˆnÄ�-shÉ™n, ËŒprÄ“-des-\

: the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed

Full Definition of PREDESTINATION
1
:  the act of predestinating :  the state of being predestinated
2
:  the doctrine that God in consequence of his foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those who are destined for salvation _

So I guess that Atheists can't believe in predestination because they don't believe in God, which by definition is integral.  So is there freewill?  

Sam Harris makes the argument that there is not.  He argues that the choices that one makes are determined by prior events that one has no control over.  Furthermore he states that current understanding of neuroscience (measuring brainwaves and such) shows that thoughts precede actions sometimes by minutes.  He asks "Where do these thoughts come from?"  He also argues that since we can to some degree "read" one's response to a question (observe brain activity that precedes action) we can in effect read the subject's "mind".   As technology advances, this ability will become more precise.


----------



## ambush80

I'd also like to discuss the different believers' ideas about predestination, freewill, limited freewill etc.

Where do these notions come from?  How are they supported logically?  Biblically?


----------



## bullethead

I personally do not think anything is set in stone, meant to happen, or decided ahead of time for me by any being beyond our realm.
I think life is as random as it seems orderly. I think calm and chaos are always equally present. Just when things seem in order something out of the ordinary happens and when it seems things cannot be any worse a bright spot appears.
I have never just sat back and let things happen. If you want it go get it but be prepared for the unexpected because rarely do things work out as planned.


----------



## WaltL1

I watched that video you posted by Sam Harris. It was thought provoking. I'm not sure I buy into it 100 % but Im not sure if I don't either.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I personally do not think anything is set in stone, meant to happen, or decided ahead of time for me by any being beyond our realm.
> I think life is as random as it seems orderly. I think calm and chaos are always equally present. Just when things seem in order something out of the ordinary happens and when it seems things cannot be any worse a bright spot appears.
> I have never just sat back and let things happen. If you want it go get it but be prepared for the unexpected because rarely do things work out as planned.



I was talking more about one's actions.  How much control does one have?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I watched that video you posted by Sam Harris. It was thought provoking. I'm not sure I buy into it 100 % but Im not sure if I don't either.



It makes sense on its face.  

I'm not sure I buy into it completely either but I haven't been able to refute any of his logic.  Maybe it's just such a foreign way to think about things.  

I think about it a lot.

If a believer were to accept Harris' logic about the absence of freewill then I imagine that it would fully support the omniscience of god.  As to "Where do the thoughts come from?", well, they come from god.  Even as a non-believer who leaves the slightest possibility of god's existence open, that notion feels awfully consoling.


----------



## 660griz

I guess atheist are the only ones with free will.


----------



## JB0704

Give it some time, Griz......this thread should take off eventually.  I think we have used the other as a catch all for every topic we can think of for the last several weeks.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Give it some time, Griz......this thread should take off eventually.  I think we have used the other as a catch all for every topic we can think of for the last several weeks.



I kinda enjoyed the wide goal post.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I was talking more about one's actions.  How much control does one have?



In my opinion... Total control.

Situations arise where the only factor is how a person handles it.

There are times I have been pushed up to a point where the next action resulted in Life or Death.
I cannot imagine some invisible being is controlling us all like a video game.
I think things are exactly what we make of them.
Taking the time to type this out could result in me missing an accident or being in one on the trip to work. A minute or two ahead or behind has an effect.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> In my opinion... Total control.
> 
> Situations arise where the only factor is how a person handles it.
> 
> There are times I have been pushed up to a point where the next action resulted in Life or Death.
> I cannot imagine some invisible being is controlling us all like a video game.
> I think things are exactly what we make of them.
> Taking the time to type this out could result in me missing an accident or being in one on the trip to work. A minute or two ahead or behind has an effect.




Start at 19:30





He makes a distinction between thoughts that you have and when you consciously experience them.  Very interesting.

Try his experiment at 26:30


----------



## ambush80

The subconscious is churning and burning all the time like in a dream state, and there is certainly evidence to support this, and when provoked with stimulus, like picking a movie, there's an infinite number of reactions that are possible.  Running away doesn't seem to fit with the task at hand so there must be some mental triage filter that selects from a bank of things and categories that relate to the task.   

So first there has to be an understanding of the task.  Then perhaps a reflexive reaction to it.

This sounds all egg heady but I've found that this new way of considering things alters the way that I view the world.  It made me more aware of the types of things that I put in my "bank of things and categories" that will influence my reactions.


----------



## Artfuldodger

"decided by God or fate and cannot be changed."

Can't fate be used by the Atheist when believing in predestination? Define fate.

What about the restraints science places on our free will? We don't have the ability to operate against gravity or outside of time.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> The subconscious is churning and burning all the time like in a dream state, and there is certainly evidence to support this, and when provoked with stimulus, like picking a movie, there's an infinite number of reactions that are possible.  Running away doesn't seem to fit with the task at hand so there must be some mental triage filter that selects from a bank of things and categories that relate to the task.
> 
> So first there has to be an understanding of the task.  Then perhaps a reflexive reaction to it.
> 
> This sounds all egg heady but I've found that this new way of considering things alters the way that I view the world.  It made me more aware of the types of things that I put in my "bank of things and categories" that will influence my reactions.





> so there must be some mental triage filter that selects from a bank of things and categories that relate to the task.


Yeah Im on board with that part of it.
What Im not sure about is if you are stuck with that bank of things or if they can be written over so you now have a new bank of things.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> "decided by God or fate and cannot be changed."
> 
> Can't fate be used by the Atheist when believing in predestination? Define fate.



From Webster:

_fate
noun \ˈfāt\

: a power that is believed to control what happens in the future

: the things that will happen to a person or thing : the future that someone or something will have
_

I suppose that there might be atheists that might theorize about a force that influences the future. In general they don't believe in things that aren't provable.




Artfuldodger said:


> What about the restraints science places on our free will? We don't have the ability to operate against gravity or outside of time.



I think you're talking about Natural Law.  Science describes natural law.   Having the will to do something doesn't guarantee that you can do it.  

Again from Webster:

_free will
noun

: the ability to choose how to act

: the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God_


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah Im on board with that part of it.
> What Im not sure about is if you are stuck with that bank of things or if they can be written over so you now have a new bank of things.



I suppose that would describe learning in a sense.  As far as I know, you can't get rid of things that you've learned unless you have physical damage.

There are probably well worn neural paths that get used more often which makes it seem all the more important to program them properly.  This could get into morality.


----------



## Artfuldodger

"the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God"

This would be "limited Free will"


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God"
> 
> This would be "*limited Free* will"



And since those contradict each other, it's a misnomer.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> "the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God"
> 
> This would be "limited Free will"



If I understand this correctly, there are some things that god is in absolute control of and some things that he doesn't control at all and everything in between .  

So that would mean that sometimes he is surprised by what we do?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> If I understand this correctly, there are some things that god is in absolute control of and some things that he doesn't control at all and everything in between .
> 
> So that would mean that sometimes he is surprised by what we do?



Make no mistake, God, ultimately, is in total control of everything and nothing takes Him by surprise. In other words, He has an end already established and all things work together to achieve that end.He makes sure that happens. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Make no mistake, God, ultimately, is in total control of everything and nothing takes Him by surprise. In other words, He has an end already established and all things work together to achieve that end.He makes sure that happens. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.



Completely freeing you from responsibility for you actions. Nice.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Completely freeing you from responsibility for you actions. Nice.



Not true.He gives us instructions on how He requires us to live.If we don't heed that there are consequences.And it ALL works toward His purpose and goal.He's complex.We can't put Him in a box.Our minds are finite, therefore "His ways are past finding out".
He gives us just enough knowledge of His will and purpose to live for His glory and the rest we just have to trust Him on.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Not true.He gives us instructions on how He requires us to live.If we don't heed that there are consequences.And it ALL works toward His purpose and goal.He's complex.We can't put Him in a box.Our minds are finite, therefore "His ways are past finding out".
> He gives us just enough knowledge of His will and purpose to live for His glory and the rest we just have to trust Him on.



You don't have a choice in the matter. If you live how he wants you to it's because he made you do it. If you don't, he wanted that as well. 

Either you're removed from the equation, a la everything is predestined according to his plan, or you play a part in it, and he gives you the universe of possibilities. Even by limiting your actions to a specific set that get the desired end result he wishes, he's playing you like a marionette. 

Considering you said:


welderguy said:


> Make no mistake, God, ultimately, is in* total control of everything* and nothing takes Him by surprise. In other words, He has an end already established and all things work together to achieve that end.He makes sure that happens. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.



Then that means he's totally in control of you and you have no role except as a meat puppet.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You don't have a choice in the matter. If you live how he wants you to it's because he made you do it. If you don't, he wanted that as well.
> 
> Either you're removed from the equation, a la everything is predestined according to his plan, or you play a part in it, and he gives you the universe of possibilities. Even by limiting your actions to a specific set that get the desired end result he wishes, he's playing you like a marionette.
> 
> Considering you said:
> 
> 
> Then that means he's totally in control of you and you have no role except as a meat puppet.



I told you He was complex.See He gets His result by working on the will.That's how He explained His dealings with Pharaoh.He said He hardened Pharaoh's heart.In doing so , Pharaoh let His people free from Egypt.
"The heart of the king is in His hands, as the rivers of water He turneth it whithersoever He will."


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I told you He was complex.See He gets His result by working on the will.That's how He explained His dealings with Pharaoh.He said He hardened Pharaoh's heart.In doing so , Pharaoh let His people free from Egypt.


Did Pharaoh have a choice or any control in whether his heart was hardened or not?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I told you He was complex.See He gets His result by working on the will.That's how He explained His dealings with Pharaoh.He said He hardened Pharaoh's heart.In doing so , Pharaoh let His people free from Egypt.
> "The heart of the king is in His hands, as the rivers of water He turneth it whithersoever He will."



Chinese algebra is complex. What HE is is paradoxical. 

Either God is in control of everything, meaning you have no free will, or he's not in control of everything and you have free will.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Did Pharaoh have a choice or any control in whether his heart was hardened or not?



Based on Rom.9:18"Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy,and whom He will He hardeneth."I don't believe pharaoh could have avoided being hardened.I could be wrong because I don't know the whole mind of God.One thing is certain, pharaoh was held accountable for his actions even though God hardened his heart.That's why we are all commanded to repent and humble ourselves before the Lord.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Based on Rom.9:18"Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy,and whom He will He hardeneth."I don't believe pharaoh could have avoided being hardened.I could be wrong because I don't know the whole mind of God.One thing is certain, pharaoh was held accountable for his actions even though God hardened his heart.That's why we are all commanded to repent and humble ourselves before the Lord.


...and beg for mercy 'cause you don't know what you're gonna get?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> ...and beg for mercy 'cause you don't know what you're gonna get?



That's right.
David did that when he prayed and fasted for his child that was at the point of death.He said who knows whether the Lord will have mercy or not.God had already told him the child would die.David still didn't give up until it was dead.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Based on Rom.9:18"Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy,and whom He will He hardeneth."I don't believe pharaoh could have avoided being hardened.I could be wrong because I don't know the whole mind of God.One thing is certain, pharaoh was held accountable for his actions even though God hardened his heart.That's why we are all commanded to repent and humble ourselves before the Lord.


Why would all of us be commanded to do that if its already predetermined who is saved and whether we repent or not or are humbled or not make no difference?
Your religion has serious control issues.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Why would all of us be commanded to do that if its already predetermined who is saved and whether we repent or not or are humbled or not make no difference?
> Your religion has serious control issues.



The way I see it, none of us know that we are NOT the elect.Some have the assurance of salvation already, but others either haven't been given it yet or never will.But ,because no one knows for sure that they DON'T have salvation, doesn't it make sense to humble yourself and try to repent(if you are able)?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> The way I see it, none of us know that we are NOT the elect.Some have the assurance of salvation already, but others either haven't been given it yet or never will.But ,because no one knows for sure that they DON'T have salvation, doesn't it make sense to humble yourself and try to repent(if you are able)?



So you don't really, REALLY know that you're going to stay an elect.  God might have a plan for you that turns you into a vessel of wrath later, right?  I mean, it's possible?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> So you don't really, REALLY know that you're going to stay an elect.  God might have a plan for you that turns you into a vessel of wrath later, right?  I mean, it's possible?



No.If you were chosen to be one of the elect, that will never change.Your name is written in God's book.(Lamb's book of Life)
He gives a great promise to His elect in Mal.3:6."I am the Lord.I change not.Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The way I see it, none of us know that we are NOT the elect.Some have the assurance of salvation already, but others either haven't been given it yet or never will.But ,because no one knows for sure that they DON'T have salvation, doesn't it make sense to humble yourself and try to repent(if you are able)?


Here's what makes sense to me -
Tell the elect who they are and leave everybody else alone.
Anything else is a perverse desire to control and the entertainment value of having puppets on a string.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Here's what makes sense to me -
> Tell the elect who they are and leave everybody else alone.
> Anything else is a perverse desire to control and the entertainment value of having puppets on a string.



He does what He wants and He's just and righteous in doing it.He's the creator.It's ALL for His glory.We don't belong to ourselves.We belong to Him.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> He does what He wants and He's just and righteous in doing it.He's the creator.It's ALL for His glory.We don't belong to ourselves.We belong to Him.


I promise this isn't intended as an insult but -
I think you may be the most indoctrinated person Ive ever met on here. Your ability to close your eyes and ignore ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is put in front you, no matter how obvious or factual or commonsensical, is amazing.
And maybe that's how it should be if you believe.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I promise this isn't intended as an insult but -
> I think you may be the most indoctrinated person Ive ever met on here. Your ability to close your eyes and ignore ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is put in front you, no matter how obvious, is amazing.
> And maybe that's how it should be if you believe.



His faith is strong, and I admire that in him even if I don't understand how it's possible.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> His faith is strong, and I admire that in him even if I don't understand how it's possible.


I think at this point I would actually be disappointed if anything swayed him from what he believes.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I think at this point I would actually be disappointed if anything swayed him from what he believes.



I'd feel a little guilty, personally. Like, again not intended as an insult, when you take a child's woobie away for the first time and they realize how cold and rough the world is. Not saying he doesn't realize that, just that his "woobie" is a lot stronger to him than the harshness of reality.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'd feel a little guilty, personally. Like, again not intended as an insult, when you take a child's woobie away for the first time and they realize how cold and rough the world is. Not saying he doesn't realize that, just that his "woobie" is a lot stronger to him than the harshness of reality.


What the heck is a "woobie"????
All I had were GI Joes.
Im starting to feel a little neglected.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> What the heck is a "woobie"????
> All I had were GI Joes.
> Im starting to feel a little neglected.



The comfort blanket nearly every toddler carries around?


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The comfort blanket nearly every toddler carries around?


That's a "binkie" not a "woobie".
I had one of those so I guess I wasn't neglected after all.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Based on Rom.9:18"Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy,and whom He will He hardeneth."I don't believe pharaoh could have avoided being hardened.I could be wrong because I don't know the whole mind of God.One thing is certain, pharaoh was held accountable for his actions even though God hardened his heart.That's why we are all commanded to repent and humble ourselves before the Lord.


So God hardened Pharaoh's heart and then held Pharaoh accountable for doing precisely what God made him do.
Your god is a sadistic whack job.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> That's a "binkie" not a "woobie".



No, babies suck on binkies or nuks. 

And I have proof.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> So God hardened Pharaoh's heart and then held Pharaoh accountable for doing precisely what God made him do.
> Your god is a sadistic whack job.


No Bullet you got it all wrong. You just cant understand it that's all. Its as simple as this -


> He does what He wants and He's just and righteous in doing it.He's the creator.It's ALL for His glory.We don't belong to ourselves.We belong to Him.


Just close your eyes and ignore the contradiction. Breathe deep, relax, its all for his glory.
And don't forget to tithe even if you aren't one of the elect.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, babies suck on binkies or nuks.
> 
> And I have proof.



Im a different denomination. The Debil made that movie.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> No.If you were chosen to be one of the elect, that will never change.Your name is written in God's book.(Lamb's book of Life)
> He gives a great promise to His elect in Mal.3:6."I am the Lord.I change not.Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."



But you don't really, REALLY know yet until you're dead.  He may have a plan for you that includes you becoming an ultimate agent of evil (for his glory, of course).  Maybe as a lesson to the truly elect.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> No Bullet you got it all wrong. You just cant understand it that's all. Its as simple as this -
> 
> Just close your eyes and ignore the contradiction. Breathe deep, relax, its all for his glory.
> And don't forget to tithe even if you aren't one of the elect.



These are the things that opened my eyes. 
They made me realize that being was not worthy of my worship.
I know humans that are more godlike than whatever sick version is portrayed by the ancient writers of the Bible.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> He does what He wants and He's just and righteous in doing it.He's the creator.It's ALL for His glory.We don't belong to ourselves.We belong to Him.



If you're right about him, by what you've read in the Bible, then that is as true a statement as has ever been uttered.



WaltL1 said:


> I promise this isn't intended as an insult but -
> I think you may be the most indoctrinated person Ive ever met on here. Your ability to close your eyes and ignore ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is put in front you, no matter how obvious or factual or commonsensical, is amazing.
> And maybe that's how it should be if you believe.



It seems to me that if you're gonna believe then you better get right with the believin'.  In for a penny in for a pound.  

There really isn't anything to ignore.  There's no proof either way.  He's following the rules as stated in his guide.  I don't know his story but perhaps he discovered that this is the only way that the world makes sense.



WaltL1 said:


> I think at this point I would actually be disappointed if anything swayed him from what he believes.



I wouldn't.  I think all of us on the other side recognize what a good thing it is that most believers in Western civilization have softened on many of the issues that would hinder peaceful society.  

If only they stuck to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your god with all your heart" I would be cool with them.  Problems come when they try to interpret what the "Love your god" means.  They seem to think that it means trying to change the world in such a way that it conforms to Biblical principles.  That's the yucky part.

Welder,

As far as predestination/free will goes, do you agree with Harris' position that everything that one does is dependent on things in the past and that decisions one makes just "occur" out of one's control?


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> These are the things that opened my eyes.
> They made me realize that being was not worthy of my worship.
> I know humans that are more godlike than whatever sick version is portrayed by the ancient writers of the Bible.




The predestination/sovereignty of god position is actually quite sublime.  If you REALLY can't stop yourself from killing people it's because you're a murderer.  It's who you are.   Now you have to be dealt with.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> The predestination/sovereignty of god position is actually quite sublime.  If you REALLY can't stop yourself from killing people it's because you're a murderer.  It's who you are.   Now you have to be dealt with.



That parts in blue are my precise thoughts about this biblical version of a god.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Welder,
> 
> As far as predestination/free will goes, do you agree with Harris' position that everything that one does is dependent on things in the past and that decisions one makes just "occur" out of one's control?



I do not agree.
I think God can and does use a person's past in various ways but I wouldn't try to say He's bound to that concept.Otherwise, why would Paul admonish us to :"forget those things which are behind and press toward the mark of the high calling of Christ"
On the other hand we are also admonished to "remember from whence thou art fallen".
The lesson seems to be: don't let your bad past hinder you from trying to do better; but also, don't let it make you high-minded either.

We have choices to make.They don't nullify God's master plan one bit.In fact He enables you to make those choices by directing your heart.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I do not agree.
> I think God can and does use a person's past in various ways but I wouldn't try to say He's bound to that concept.Otherwise, why would Paul admonish us to :"forget those things which are behind and press toward the mark of the high calling of Christ"
> On the other hand we are also admonished to "remember from whence thou art fallen".
> The lesson seems to be: don't let your bad past hinder you from trying to do better; but also, don't let it make you high-minded either.
> 
> We have choices to make.They don't nullify God's master plan one bit.In fact He enables you to make those choices by directing your heart.



I said it once before and I'll say it again.  I don't think you've thought your position through.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I said it once before and I'll say it again.  I don't think you've thought your position through.



I'm certainly open to hearing your reasons why.I know that I have much to learn.So fire away.
My responses may come slow because I'm working nightshift.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> I'm certainly open to hearing your reasons why.I know that I have much to learn.So fire away.
> My responses may come slow because I'm working nightshift.



I would imagine because you say God is in total control and then you say we have choices. Do you realize if God is in total control, you have no choices. 
If you have a choice then it could deviate God's plan. God's plan would have to change according to your choice.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I would imagine because you say God is in total control and then you say we have choices. Do you realize if God is in total control, you have no choices.
> If you have a choice then it could deviate God's plan. God's plan would have to change according to your choice.




And he would be surprised.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Example: I am sitting in a bar and get drunk. God's plan is for me to drive home drunk, run off the road and die. 
I make a choice to call a cab instead and arrive home alive. Now God must alter his plan for my life to continue.
Now even if God makes the cab run off the road and I die, he still had to altar my destiny. Either way made God altar his plan.
If God knew I would call a cab from the beginning of creation then I never had a choice. Because then it would become part of his plan. If my choice is part of God's plan then technically it's not a choice.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Example: I am sitting in a bar and get drunk. God's plan is for me to drive home drunk, run off the road and die.
> I make a choice to call a cab instead and arrive home alive. Now God must alter his plan for my life to continue.
> Now even if God makes the cab run off the road and I die, he still had to altar my destiny. Either way made God altar his plan.
> If God knew I would call a cab from the beginning of creation then I never had a choice. Because then it would become part of his plan. If my choice is part of God's plan then technically it's not a choice.


That's well thought through.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> And he would be surprised.



Yeah, he would now have to rewrite you a new life. This would be really hard since he knew your life from the beginning of time.

I could say, God gave me another chance. Maybe it was his plan not to let me die because I was of the elect and not yet reconciled.

There really is no way a lost person can die before salvation. A second chance would not be needed for a future to be elected, non-reconciled, lost person.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Completely freeing you from responsibility for you actions. Nice.


No. It assures accountability.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

welderguy said:


> Make no mistake, God, ultimately, is in total control of everything and nothing takes Him by surprise. In other words, He has an end already established and all things work together to achieve that end.He makes sure that happens. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.



Then why? Why bother with any of it? It doesn't make sense.

So.. God made Hitler in his own image - Why? just to pick one thing- Why did he cause WWII and 60 million deaths world-wide if he knows how everything is going to end anyway?

This one of the very tenets of religion that made me see the light when I was a child.  What sort of messed up being allows all the suffering in the world if he knows how it all ends anyway?  Is he a teenage boy with a science project (us) in an alternate universe? 

Nope, I'd find it hard to respect a god that allows what goes on in this world to happen if he already knew what will be and all of that.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Yeah, he would now have to rewrite you a knew life. This would be really hard since he knew your life from the beginning of time.
> 
> I could say, God gave me another chance. Maybe it was his plan not to let me die because I was of the elect and not yet reconciled.
> 
> There really is no way a lost person can die before salvation. A second chance would not be needed for a future to be elected, non-reconciled, lost person.



This is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.It's not that complicated.
We have choices.That's a given in life.What color shirt to wear,what kind of car to drive,whether to be nice to someone or to be mean, etc.
All I'm saying is whatever choice you make is determined by God's already performed work on your heart.Whether it's a hardening or a softening.
I illustrated earlier the example of pharaoh.There are many other examples.
Bottom line is God's will is going to be done and He's not limited by us to get it done.
He's able to do it .


----------



## ambush80

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Then why? Why bother with any of it? It doesn't make sense.
> 
> So.. God made Hitler in his own image - Why? just to pick one thing- Why did he cause WWII and 60 million deaths world-wide if he knows how everything is going to end anyway?
> 
> This one of the very tenets of religion that made me see the light when I was a child.  What sort of messed up being allows all the suffering in the world if he knows how it all ends anyway?  Is he a teenage boy with a science project (us) in an alternate universe?
> 
> Nope, I'd find it hard to respect a god that allows what goes on in this world to happen if he already knew what will be and all of that.




Yeah it's messed up.  Good thing we don't believe he exists in the way that's described in the Bible.  

If he's real (the one that Christians are talking about) it doesn't make one bit of difference whether or not you respect him.  So just don't.  

That's the safe bet.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> No. It assures accountability.



How so?  Can you elaborate?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> This is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.It's not that complicated.
> We have choices.That's a given in life.What color shirt to wear,what kind of car to drive,whether to be nice to someone or to be mean, etc.
> All I'm saying is whatever choice you make is determined by God's already performed work on your heart.Whether it's a hardening or a softening.
> I illustrated earlier the example of pharaoh.There are many other examples.
> Bottom line is God's will is going to be done and He's not limited by us to get it done.
> He's able to do it .



You're new so I get to whip this out again.

Does Goldilocks have a choice to sleep in Mama Bear's bed?  Is there any version where she does?


----------



## gemcgrew

Dr. Strangelove said:


> What sort of messed up being allows all the suffering in the world if he knows how it all ends anyway?  Is he a teenage boy with a science project (us) in an alternate universe?





bullethead said:


> Your god is a sadistic whack job.


And the "God is a big meanie" award goes to?


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> That parts in blue are my precise thoughts about this biblical version of a god.




Yes.  The Biblical god is all those bad things.  He was written that way.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> How so?  Can you elaborate?


Sorry man, I got distracted by a box of Girl Scout cookies, the Caramel deLites. 

We are assured of accountability by way of the judgement. God is determined to  judge us.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Sorry man, I got distracted by a box of Girl Scout cookies, the Caramel deLites.
> 
> We are assured of accountability by way of the judgement. God is determined to  judge us.



I don't see how that fits in with predes.  Where is the judging if someone's been guilty or innocent since, well.....from eternity?  I see the dialogue something like this "Did you break the law?" "Was I gonna do anything but?"  It's a moot line of questioning.

I used to like the Tagalongs.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> I don't see how that fits in with predes.


Fits well. We are predestined to be judged. God determined it and man is not free.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I don't see how that fits in with predes.  Where is the judging if someone's been guilty or innocent since, well.....from eternity?  I see the dialogue something like this "Did you break the law?" "Was I gonna do anything but?"  It's a moot line of questioning.
> 
> I used to like the Tagalongs.



It's ALL for His glory.even the suffering. For a child of God the suffering is what conforms him to the image of Christ.Do you know how great a gift it is to be conformed to the image of Christ? To know the FELLOWSHIP of His suffering?
Greatest gift ever! 
Paradoxical isn't it?


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> And the "God is a big meanie" award goes to?



66 Book authors


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> It's ALL for His glory.even the suffering. For a child of God the suffering is what conforms him to the image of Christ.Do you know how great a gift it is to be conformed to the image of Christ? To know the FELLOWSHIP of His suffering?
> Greatest gift ever!
> Paradoxical isn't it?


Some of your posts really confirm my decision to reject religion.
That is a really really sick statement you just made.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

gemcgrew said:


> Sorry man, I got distracted by a box of Girl Scout cookies, the Caramel deLites.
> 
> We are assured of accountability by way of the judgement. God is determined to  judge us.



It's ok, apparently God knew that you would be distracted by that Girl Scout cookie and arranged for all of the rest of us to have something to do meanwhile...


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Fits well. We are predestined to be judged. God determined it and man is not free.



How do you judge someone that is already guilty from the beginning of time?


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> How do you judge someone that is already guilty from the beginning of time?


As guilty.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> As guilty.



Are you using a different definition than this?

_judge
verb \ˈjəj\

: to form an opinion about (something or someone) after careful thought

: to regard (someone) as either good or bad

law : to make an official decision about (a legal case)_


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Are you using a different definition than this?
> 
> _judge
> verb \ˈjəj\
> 
> : to form an opinion about (something or someone) after careful thought
> 
> : to regard (someone) as either good or bad
> 
> law : to make an official decision about (a legal case)_


In the context of our discussion, I would agree to use "to regard (someone) as either good or bad", and also with the Biblical position that God demands perfection.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> In the context of our discussion, I would agree to use "to regard (someone) as either good or bad", and also with the Biblical position that God demands perfection.



Perfectly evil?


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Perfectly evil?


Through and through.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> This is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.It's not that complicated.
> We have choices.That's a given in life.What color shirt to wear,what kind of car to drive,whether to be nice to someone or to be mean, etc.
> All I'm saying is whatever choice you make is determined by God's already performed work on your heart.Whether it's a hardening or a softening.
> I illustrated earlier the example of pharaoh.There are many other examples.
> Bottom line is God's will is going to be done and He's not limited by us to get it done.
> He's able to do it .



I guess you believe in a type of limited freewill. We have choices in many things but not salvation. I can decide what shirt to wear but not salvation. Actually many free will believers believe this yet they still have freewill. I guess the choice is they can refuse but not after receiving salvation. 

How can it be my choice to be nice to someone if I'm totally depraved? If God has hardened my heart, how can I do anything good?
If God has elected me then it's the work of the softening instead of my choice. God has softened my heart. 
Everything then becomes the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Even if I had free will before salvation, after election everything i do is from the Holy Spirit. Except which shirt I wear and what kind of car I drive.
God who is still in total control somehow lets me make the mundane choices but he still makes the important ones such as election, death, etc.

I've just decided that figuring all of this out isn't important any more. God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and he is no respecter of men. Salvation is totally from God's grace and not from any works I can perform.
Either way my salvation isn't granted even as a factor of freewill. In this respect I agree with Welderguy. 

Now as far as God being in total control;
God is in complete and total control of everything or either he isn't. God is in total control of the timeline and events of the earth, satan, me, you, and... 
Well let me say it one more time "everything."
I can assure you, if God is in total control, there is absolutely no way I have a choice in popping a zit or clipping my toe nails. No disrespect, it's just the way it's gotta be. 
Maybe Welderguy believes in Limited Free will and he just doesn't understand the concept.
Maybe Gem could explain it better and he can go all the way to a full fledged Predestination believer.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If I have a choice to be nice to someone then I've changed my destiny. The other choice would be to be mean to that same person.
By changing one tiny little event in my life, I have changed all of my future events and the future events of the person I was nice or mean to. A whole different chain of events will now start to happen. Multiple different chains of events.

Example: I stop to give directions to an elderly couple. I wasn't going to be nice and do this but changed my mind. By stopping to help, I changed the timing of my future events. 
Now everything will be five minutes off. If God wanted me to get hit by a car, that car has already past by. He must now change my destiny to get killed by a safe dropping out of a window. 
But I make a choice to grab a burger before I get to the falling safe.
Again God has to change his plans to meet my ever changing events of choice.
Even the tiniest mundane choices could altar God's plan. Now multiply this by every human, parasite, germ, cancer,automobile, jet, astroid, planet, etc., constantly changing from choices would keep God so busy he wouldn't have time to elect.
For every change of event from choice would require God to make an equal but opposite change of plans.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> If I have a choice to be nice to someone then I've changed my destiny. The other choice would be to be mean to that same person.
> By changing one tiny little event in my life, I have changed all of my future events and the future events of the person I was nice or mean to. A whole different chain of events will now start to happen. Multiple different chains of events.
> 
> Example: I stop to give directions to an elderly couple. I wasn't going to be nice and do this but changed my mind. By stopping to help, I changed the timing of my future events.
> Now everything will be five minutes off. If God wanted me to get hit by a car, that car has already past by. He must now change my destiny to get killed by a safe dropping out of a window.
> But I make a choice to grab a burger before I get to the falling safe.
> Again God has to change his plans to meet my ever changing events of choice.
> Even the tiniest mundane choices could altar God's plan. Now multiply this by every human, parasite, germ, cancer,automobile, jet, astroid, planet, etc., constantly changing from choices would keep God so busy he wouldn't have time to elect.
> For every change of event from choice would require God to make an equal but opposite change of plans.


Of course the argument to that is going to be that stopping to help the couple or grabbing the burger, every single thing that you did, every breath you took, was exactly what God had planned.


----------



## 660griz

gemcgrew said:


> the Biblical position that God demands perfection.



Shouldn't God lead by example?


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Of course the argument to that is going to be that stopping to help the couple or grabbing the burger, every single thing that you did, every breath you took, was exactly what God had planned.



Then that would mean God lets us think or believe we have choices when in actuality we really don't. 
I've said this to what most free will Christians say which is; We have choices, it's just that God has always known what our choices would be. If I'm trying to decide between my red and green shirt and choose the red one, God already knew what shirt I would choose because of his omniscience. God's knowledge of my future choices removes me from changing as God will know what those are already.
While this may be true, it still doesn't technically give me free will as there is now no way for me to veer from what God already knows.
So even free will has already been pre-seen by God which is the same as predestination.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Free will Christians feel they have the problem solved by stating God already knows who will come to him using his omniscience.
Somehow they see this a different from predestination or election.
Well the Bible says God chooses salvation and it is not based on anything man does.
Now getting back to man making his own destiny within Christianity, how is this possible? How can man have anything to do with his destiny if he can't even choose his own salvation?

Even under the freewill concept God has already looked forward and already knows who will accept his offer. How can you possibly make or change from what God already knows? Even if he didn't cause your destiny, he knows and he foreknew your destiny. How can I change what God already knows? He already knows what changes I would choose. My destiny and salvation or lack there of was foreseen from creation. In reality this is the same as predestination/election. Some such as Election believers realize this. It is the only answer.

Free will believers mostly say; it's just a mystery or it's a way God operates outside of time. We don't understand everything about God.
They read the Bible and see God controlling the whole destiny of every characters in the stories. They read about God creating the earth, controlling the earth, controlling it's end, and causing our end. Hardening hearts, blinding people, softening hearts, unblinding people, afflicting people, healing people, etc.

Everything in the Bible is God's plan. Adam sinning was God's plan or foreknowledge. The Word/Jesus was God's plan from the beginning or at east God's foreknowledge. God foreknew man would need a messiah. Next he made a covenant with man knowing full well, man couldn't keep it. It was a way for God to show man how terrible he was at keeping laws. It was to teach us about salvation through a messiah. It was planned by God.

This concept was prophesy. Jesus coming was prophesy. The death of Jesus was prophesy. The return of Jesus is prophesy.
My birth was from God and my death is from God. Why would my life not be from God? Now if my birth was from God, perhaps free will gives me my life from accountability to salvation. Then my life is once again turned back over to God. My destiny is sealed.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Have you ever wondered why every believer of "Election" is one of the "elect?"
Even though God can have mercy on whom he wants, it's always has to be a believer of Predestination. Why? Because if you believe you did something to make God grant you salvation, you have taken God's power and bestowed it to yourself. God would never grant salvation to someone who believes his salvation is from something they did.


----------



## WaltL1

Art you are asking all the same questions that we ask you guys.
And you are right, this is the answer we usually get -


> it's just a mystery or it's a way God operates outside of time.


So our next question is if you don't understand it and its just a mystery how do you choose to believe it over some other doctrine?
That question usually gets avoided.


----------



## hummerpoo

WaltL1 said:


> Art you are asking all the same questions that we ask you guys.
> And you are right, this is the answer we usually get -
> 
> So our next question is if you don't understand it and its just a mystery how do you choose to believe it over some other doctrine?
> That question usually gets avoided.



Walt, that's the easiest question of all ... we don't choose, God does.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Art you are asking all the same questions that we ask you guys.
> And you are right, this is the answer we usually get -
> 
> So our next question is if you don't understand it and its just a mystery how do you choose to believe it over some other doctrine?
> That question usually gets avoided.



An even better one, if you don't understand it, how can you _know_ it?


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Art you are asking all the same questions that we ask you guys.
> And you are right, this is the answer we usually get -
> 
> So our next question is if you don't understand it and its just a mystery how do you choose to believe it over some other doctrine?
> That question usually gets avoided.



I'm basically presenting that according to the Bible one's salvation has nothing to do with whether the person believes in freewill or predestination. When it comes to salvation it's already been determined either by us or God. What difference does it make who made the decision if the decision of my salvation has already been made?

So if I don't understand completely, why this doctrine? It was the one I was indoctrinated into. I don't believe even that matters as God can elect from other religions.

Why even believe at all? Faith. 
Where is this faith from? God

I can't see me changing God's plan. Election removes my salvation decision from me. 
I haven't figured out why or how I still have "responsibility" with predestination.

I still believe I somehow  have limited freewill as Welderguy believes. Maybe God doesn't know what shirt I'll choose. It would be easier and more logical to believes as Gem that 
God is in total control. Welderguy and other Christians say they believe God is in total control even though we have choices. 
How is this possible?
It is an Enigma. Perhaps one day I will make the leap to a full predestination believer. I will gladly give up my freedom for security.


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> An even better one, if you don't understand it, how can you _know_ it?



For a freewill believer, he only needs to understand Jesus as Redeemer. He only has to accept and believe this small portion of the total doctrine.

For an Election believer, he doesn't need to understand any of it. His salvation isn't dependent on knowing or understanding.
After God elects him, this knowledge will be revealed as needed.
He doesn't even have to be indoctrinated in the Christian faith. He could be a Hindu. Election is from God and God doesn't base his election on any belief of the person he is electing. It's a wonderful concept. You, me, or the Hindu can never believe without God electing us.
It removes your salvation from your works. That thing you keep stressing isn't a prerequisite for salvation. It happens after salvation. That's when you get your morals. Before then you are depraved.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> For a freewill believer, he only needs to understand Jesus as Redeemer. He only has to accept and believe this small portion of the total doctrine.
> 
> For an Election believer, he doesn't need to understand any of it. His salvation isn't dependent on knowing or understanding.
> After God elects him, this knowledge will be revealed as needed.
> He doesn't even have to be indoctrinated in the Christian faith. He could be a Hindu. Election is from God and God doesn't base his election on any belief of the person he is electing. It's a wonderful concept. You, me, or the Hindu can never believe without God electing us.
> It removes your salvation from your works. That thing you keep stressing isn't a prerequisite for salvation. It happens after salvation. That's when you get your morals. Before then you are depraved.



Fair enough, and I agree with the resulting logic. 

Still, my previous post was directed at those who claim to _know_ anything about God.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> For a freewill believer, he only needs to understand Jesus as Redeemer. He only has to accept and believe this small portion of the total doctrine.
> 
> For an Election believer, he doesn't need to understand any of it. His salvation isn't dependent on knowing or understanding.
> After God elects him, this knowledge will be revealed as needed.
> He doesn't even have to be indoctrinated in the Christian faith. He could be a Hindu. Election is from God and God doesn't base his election on any belief of the person he is electing. It's a wonderful concept. You, me, or the Hindu can never believe without God electing us.
> It removes your salvation from your works. That thing you keep stressing isn't a prerequisite for salvation. It happens after salvation. That's when you get your morals. Before then you are depraved.



Except for those destined for He11 through no fault of their own.  

Harris has an interesting take on punishment. If you have no freewill, if you are the result of things out of your control, then punishment takes on a new meaning.


----------



## welderguy

Wow.Art, I love ya man.But all those questions have muddied the water horribly.
Let me ask you(and everyone else) a question:

Since we know that God NEVER tempts any man to sin (James1:13),how then can someone think that God directly "controls" every action that people do?

My answer is:He doesn't DIRECTLY "control" people's actions.He INDIRECTLY "controls"every action by working on their heart (their will).For exampleharoah.
God used that man to bring His people out of captivity.He did this by hardening pharaoh's heart.God didn't cause him to sin, his hard heart did that on it's own free will.
But, do you see how God got His result, without directly causing sin, by the "free will"of pharaoh?

God is definitely in control of all things at all times.He can move mountains,turn water to wine, even make donkeys talk.But, when it comes to man, He uses a more indirect approach,because He will not be charged with tempting men to sin.This doesn't mean He doesn't have total control.Just because our finite minds can't grasp the amazing multi-tasking abilities He has, doesn't mean it's not logically possible.He's "everywhere present and nowhere absent"


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Wow.Art, I love ya man.But all those questions have muddied the water horribly.
> Let me ask you(and everyone else) a question:
> 
> Since we know that God NEVER tempts any man to sin (James1:13),how then can someone think that God directly "controls" every action that people do?
> 
> My answer is:He doesn't DIRECTLY "control" people's actions.He INDIRECTLY "controls"every action by working on their heart (their will).For exampleharoah.
> God used that man to bring His people out of captivity.He did this by hardening pharaoh's heart.God didn't cause him to sin, his hard heart did that on it's own free will.
> But, do you see how God got His result, without directly causing sin, by the "free will"of pharaoh?
> 
> God is definitely in control of all things at all times.He can move mountains,turn water to wine, even make donkeys talk.But, when it comes to man, He uses a more indirect approach,because He will not be charged with tempting men to sin.This doesn't mean He doesn't have total control.Just because our finite minds can't grasp the amazing multi-tasking abilities He has, doesn't mean it's not logically possible.He's "everywhere present and nowhere absent"



Take a look at this.  What do you think?

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=834899


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Wow.Art, I love ya man.But all those questions have muddied the water horribly.
> Let me ask you(and everyone else) a question:
> 
> Since we know that God NEVER tempts any man to sin (James1:13),how then can someone think that God directly "controls" every action that people do?
> 
> My answer is:He doesn't DIRECTLY "control" people's actions.He INDIRECTLY "controls"every action by working on their heart (their will).For exampleharoah.
> God used that man to bring His people out of captivity.He did this by hardening pharaoh's heart.God didn't cause him to sin, his hard heart did that on it's own free will.
> But, do you see how God got His result, without directly causing sin, by the "free will"of pharaoh?
> 
> God is definitely in control of all things at all times.He can move mountains,turn water to wine, even make donkeys talk.But, when it comes to man, He uses a more indirect approach,because He will not be charged with tempting men to sin.This doesn't mean He doesn't have total control.Just because our finite minds can't grasp the amazing multi-tasking abilities He has, doesn't mean it's not logically possible.He's "everywhere present and nowhere absent"



I must say my questions are asked to clear the water muddied by your answers. This is just my opinion of course. 

If God is in total control and he hardened Pharaoh's heart, to the point that said heart made Pharaoh sin, then God turned Pharaoh into a vessel of wrath. 
It's basically the same thing. It's ok to realize God does this. He told us some are destined to be vessels of wrath.
They were created for this purpose. 
Pharaoh had no other choice. He didn't have the free will to choose righteousness. He was or became totally depraved. 
Think about it. How could Pharaoh have the freewill to sin or not to sin after becoming totally depraved. I haven't or can't understand judgement or punishement for vessels of wrath.


----------



## ambush80

Welder,

I suspect that you find it righteous that god killed every man, woman, child and unborn fetus in the womb, except for 8 people in the Flood.  Why would you put anything passed him?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Take a look at this.  What do you think?
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=834899



I think both parties should have gotten the death sentence.But, I understand a bargain had to be made to get the conviction of both.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I must say my questions are asked to clear the water muddied by your answers. This is just my opinion of course.
> 
> If God is in total control and he hardened Pharaoh's heart, to the point that said heart made Pharaoh sin, then God turned Pharaoh into a vessel of wrath.
> It's basically the same thing. It's ok to realize God does this. He told us some are destined to be vessels of wrath.
> They were created for this purpose.
> Pharaoh had no other choice. He didn't have the free will to choose righteousness. He was or became totally depraved.
> Think about it. How could Pharaoh have the freewill to sin or not to sin after becoming totally depraved. I haven't or can't understand judgement or punishement for vessels of wrath.



I'm glad.  Because your sense of justice will inform how you deal with people here and now.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I think both parties should have gotten the death sentence.But, I understand a bargain had to be made to get the conviction of both.



Then god is as guilty as the one whose heart he hardened.

How about Satan?  Is he an agent of god?  Could god stop him from mauling people if he wanted to?  If he doesn't stop Satan then he must want those people mauled.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Then god is as guilty as the one whose heart he hardened.
> 
> How about Satan?  Is he an agent of god?  Could god stop him from mauling people if he wanted to?  If he doesn't stop Satan then he must want those people mauled.



Take a look at this and tell me what you think:
Romans9:14-18.


----------



## WaltL1

hummerpoo said:


> Walt, that's the easiest question of all ... we don't choose, God does.


I agree its the easiest answer.
It requires no thought, cant be disproven and completely removes you from the question.
The ultimate cop out.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm basically presenting that according to the Bible one's salvation has nothing to do with whether the person believes in freewill or predestination. When it comes to salvation it's already been determined either by us or God. What difference does it make who made the decision if the decision of my salvation has already been made?
> 
> So if I don't understand completely, why this doctrine? It was the one I was indoctrinated into. I don't believe even that matters as God can elect from other religions.
> 
> Why even believe at all? Faith.
> Where is this faith from? God
> 
> I can't see me changing God's plan. Election removes my salvation decision from me.
> I haven't figured out why or how I still have "responsibility" with predestination.
> 
> I still believe I somehow  have limited freewill as Welderguy believes. Maybe God doesn't know what shirt I'll choose. It would be easier and more logical to believes as Gem that
> God is in total control. Welderguy and other Christians say they believe God is in total control even though we have choices.
> How is this possible?
> It is an Enigma. Perhaps one day I will make the leap to a full predestination believer. I will gladly give up my freedom for security.





> It was the one I was indoctrinated into.


And that's the honest answer that we never get.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Take a look at this and tell me what you think:
> Romans9:14-18.



I think the writers have him talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Do you think that the hired killer could have changed his mind the instant before he plunged the knife into his victim?  Do you think Pharaoh could have changed his mind after being bewitched by god?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I agree its the easiest answer.
> It requires no thought, cant be disproven and completely removes you from the question.
> The ultimate cop out.




That's the sublime part.

Can you imagine being in that room illuminated by oil lamps writing the Bible and someone says "Wait a second here.  We've got a problem.  How can we possibly bring this to the people?  How can god know everything and yet we choose?  How can we say that he killed everyone on the Earth but also say that he is 'Loving Kindness'?"  "I know!  Let's just say that he does what he wants and you people aren't smart enough to understand it!  Yeah, that's the ticket!"


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Wow.Art, I love ya man.But all those questions have muddied the water horribly.
> Let me ask you(and everyone else) a question:
> 
> Since we know that God NEVER tempts any man to sin (James1:13),how then can someone think that God directly "controls" every action that people do?
> 
> My answer is:He doesn't DIRECTLY "control" people's actions.He INDIRECTLY "controls"every action by working on their heart (their will).For exampleharoah.
> God used that man to bring His people out of captivity.He did this by hardening pharaoh's heart.God didn't cause him to sin, his hard heart did that on it's own free will.
> But, do you see how God got His result, without directly causing sin, by the "free will"of pharaoh?
> 
> God is definitely in control of all things at all times.He can move mountains,turn water to wine, even make donkeys talk.But, when it comes to man, He uses a more indirect approach,because He will not be charged with tempting men to sin.This doesn't mean He doesn't have total control.Just because our finite minds can't grasp the amazing multi-tasking abilities He has, doesn't mean it's not logically possible.He's "everywhere present and nowhere absent"





> But all those questions have muddied the water horribly


.
What is it about muddy water that you don't like? They are the questions that arise when you actually think about what you believe in.
The waters are already muddy. There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity. A number of Christian beliefs originate in other religions. Most Christians can barely agree on what time of day it is. That's far from clear water.
And you think Art muddied the water?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I think he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
> 
> God doesn't inspire His apostle to talk out both sides of their mouth, only truth.
> 
> Do you think that the hired killer could have changed his mind the instant before he plunged the knife into his victim?
> 
> yes.it's very possible. And he should have.
> 
> 
> Do you think Pharaoh could have changed his mind after being bewitched by god?
> 
> Yes.it's very possible. And he should have.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> ambush80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
> 
> God doesn't inspire His apostle to talk out both sides of their mouth, only truth.
> 
> Do you think that the hired killer could have changed his mind the instant before he plunged the knife into his victim?
> 
> yes.it's very possible. And he should have.
> 
> 
> Do you think Pharaoh could have changed his mind after being bewitched by god?
> 
> Yes.it's very possible. And he should have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say you believe in "Predestination"
Click to expand...


----------



## ambush80

Welder,

I almost wish you would go off by yourself and think/pray about your position and come back when you have it sorted out but I'm even happier that you are allowing us to work through it with you.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> .
> What is it about muddy water that you don't like? They are the questions that arise when you actually think about what you believe in.
> The waters are already muddy. There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity. A number of Christian beliefs originate in other religions. Most Christians can barely agree on what time of day it is. That's far from clear water.
> And you think Art muddied the water?



Art, first of all, I hope I didn't offend you.didn't intend to.
Walt, the reason I said he "muddied the waters" is because it seemed  to me that a lot of what I had already tried to say had been distorted within his questions.
Maybe because I didn't explain myself clear enough initially.If so, then it's my fault.
Anyway, it's no big deal.just misunderstanding.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> That's the sublime part.
> 
> Can you imagine being in that room illuminated by oil lamps writing the Bible and someone says "Wait a second here.  We've got a problem.  How can we possibly bring this to the people?  How can god know everything and yet we choose?  How can we say that he killed everyone on the Earth but also say that he is 'Loving Kindness'?"  "I know!  Let's just say that he does what he wants and you people aren't smart enough to understand it!  Yeah, that's the ticket!"


That's almost to the letter exactly what I believe went on. Something inspired by God doesn't take 1600 years to write. But if you keep going back and forth trying to force the dots to connect, after 1600 years that's all you are left with.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> That's almost to the letter exactly what I believe went on. Something inspired by God doesn't take 1600 years to write. But if you keep going back and forth trying to force the dots to connect, after 1600 years that's all you are left with.



It's so much sloppier and lazy than I would have expected form a book with such huge impact.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Through and through.




Not me, brother.  And I would guess not you either.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Art, first of all, I hope I didn't offend you.didn't intend to.
> Walt, the reason I said he "muddied the waters" is because it seemed  to me that a lot of what I had already tried to say had been distorted within his questions.
> Maybe because I didn't explain myself clear enough initially.If so, then it's my fault.
> Anyway, it's no big deal.just misunderstanding.





> Maybe because I didn't explain myself clear enough initially.If so, then it's my fault.


I think you do a good job of conveying what you believe.
But what you are not able to see is that what you believe at times contradicts itself and contradicts other beliefs in Christianity. That causes questions.
Its human nature. That's why there are entire industries (counselors, mediators etc) that exist because everybody sees it their own way. We all do it.
Even amongst the A/As here we don't all agree on everything and question each other.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> It's so much sloppier and lazy than I would have expected form a book with such huge impact.


When you have fear, people's afterlife, indoctrination, love, hate etc etc as the motivator, sloppy doesn't matter.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Welder,
> 
> I almost wish you would go off by yourself and think/pray about your position and come back when you have it sorted out but I'm even happier that you are allowing us to work through it with you.



The things we've been discussing(predestination/freewill/man's sin vs. God's righteousness) can't just simply be worked out with man's logic.They must be backed up by the word of God and spiritually discerned.I have noticed that you guys (atheists/agnostics) aren't very open to what the bible says.Because of this, I'm starting to really doubt that we can "work through" anything concerning God.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The things we've been discussing(predestination/freewill/man's sin vs. God's righteousness) can't just simply be worked out with man's logic.They must be backed up by the word of God and spiritually discerned.I have noticed that you guys (atheists/agnostics) aren't very open to what the bible says.Because of this, I'm starting to really doubt that we can "work through" anything concerning God.





> I have noticed that you guys (atheists/agnostics) aren't very open to what the bible says


That's because what the Bible says can be interpreted any way you want. And everybody thinks they are right.
Again, over 30,000 denominations of Christianity.
So lets toss out this source of confusion as where we look for answers.
For us that's not a problem, for you it creates quite a conundrum.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> The things we've been discussing(predestination/freewill/man's sin vs. God's righteousness) can't just simply be worked out with man's logic.They must be backed up by the word of God and spiritually discerned.I have noticed that you guys (atheists/agnostics) aren't very open to what the bible says.Because of this, I'm starting to really doubt that we can "work through" anything concerning God.



That's right.  We will never be able to simply "trust and obey" anymore, which is why so many of us left the faith.  It's like seeing a magic trick, being dazzled and entertained and then seeing how it works.  It's never the same.  The wonder is gone.  

You're also absolutely right that you'll never be able to work it out with your mind because it doesn't make sense.  The best advice someone can give you is to "shelve" your mind; turn it off. Wait and hope that it will be revealed to you, maybe for the rest of your life.  What a waste of time.

Why not just see the contradictions and accept them for what they are?  Mistakes.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> That's because what the Bible says can be interpreted any way you want. And everybody thinks they are right.
> Again, over 30,000 denominations of Christianity.
> So lets toss out this source of confusion as where we look for answers.
> For us that's not a problem, for you it creates quite a conundrum.



Amen.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> That's because what the Bible says can be interpreted any way you want. And everybody thinks they are right.
> Again, over 30,000 denominations of Christianity.
> So lets toss out this source of confusion as where we look for answers.
> For us that's not a problem, for you it creates quite a conundrum.



Though nothing in the contents seems to do it.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> When you have fear, people's afterlife, indoctrination, love, hate etc etc as the motivator, sloppy doesn't matter.



That's why it's so important to teach people to think critically, so that they can buffer that stuff and keep it in the proper context.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Wow.Art, I love ya man.But all those questions have muddied the water horribly.
> Let me ask you(and everyone else) a question:
> 
> Since we know that God NEVER tempts any man to sin (James1:13),how then can someone think that God directly "controls" every action that people do?
> 
> My answer is:He doesn't DIRECTLY "control" people's actions.He INDIRECTLY "controls"every action by working on their heart (their will).For exampleharoah.
> God used that man to bring His people out of captivity.He did this by hardening pharaoh's heart.God didn't cause him to sin, his hard heart did that on it's own free will.
> But, do you see how God got His result, without directly causing sin, by the "free will"of pharaoh?
> 
> God is definitely in control of all things at all times.He can move mountains,turn water to wine, even make donkeys talk.But, when it comes to man, He uses a more indirect approach,because He will not be charged with tempting men to sin.This doesn't mean He doesn't have total control.Just because our finite minds can't grasp the amazing multi-tasking abilities He has, doesn't mean it's not logically possible.He's "everywhere present and nowhere absent"



This part in blue...you post this nonsense all the time...
We do not KNOW anything about a God.
According to THAT verse in the Bible all we "know" is that some anonymous writer wanted to convey that message of his beliefs or the story he wanted told.

This God of the Bible is so complex that his own believers argue among themselves as to what these ancient writings even mean, let alone every individual will tell another that this God is so complex no human can begin to understand his thought process...and in the same breath go on to tell us EXACTLY how God thinks, what he meant, what his process is etc etc etc
It ALWAYS is the SAME people that claim to be EXACTLY as the beliefs they believe in. If you tout election well by-jeepers you just happen to be one of the elect. Until you get two "elect" people telling the other one that they just do not get it like the other does.

It is a circus.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Though nothing in the contents seems to do it.



At least, not for people who haven't been given faith yet.

The ones that don't yet have faith think it's all contradictory nonsense. 
The ones that have faith know it's not, but there's no human possibility of convincing someone without faith.

It's just that simple.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> At least, not for people who haven't been given faith yet.
> 
> The ones that don't yet have faith think it's all contradictory nonsense.
> The ones that have faith know it's not, but there's no human possibility of convincing someone without faith.
> 
> It's just that simple.



You would do well to get to the point in your faith that you can say "Yes. It's contradictory and it doesn't make sense but I believe it anyway." instead of trying to make excuses.

Just my opinion.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> At least, not for people who haven't been given faith yet.
> 
> The ones that don't yet have faith think it's all contradictory nonsense.
> The ones that have faith know it's not, but there's no human possibility of convincing someone without faith.
> 
> It's just that simple.



Yep.
You have it figured out. It's the rest of the world, Christians, Denominations, congregations and people within your congregation that do not have the right faith like you do that just do not get it.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Not me, brother.  And I would guess not you either.


Your proclamation shows just how thorough it is. It also affirms that what the Bible says about you is true.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Yep.
> You have it figured out. It's the rest of the world, Christians, Denominations, congregations and people within your congregation that do not have the right faith like you do that just do not get it.



Naa.It's mostly people that just outright reject God and take it even a step further and mock Him.Those are the ones who "just do not get it".

The others, though we may not have all the answers and some of our answers may be wrong, at least are seeking Him the best we can.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Naa.It's mostly people that just outright reject God and take it even a step further and mock Him.Those are the ones who "just do not get it".
> 
> The others, though we may not have all the answers and some of our answers may be wrong, at least are seeking Him the best we can.



Sorry but I disagree.
I thought I knew God once. I believed I "got it"
I can honestly say I was worse off then.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> At least, not for people who haven't been given faith yet.
> 
> The ones that don't yet have faith think it's all contradictory nonsense.
> The ones that have faith know it's not, but there's no human possibility of convincing someone without faith.
> 
> It's just that simple.



Ahhh, so faith is the X factor that makes 2-2=4, since 2 contradicted 2, but still resulted in a higher value. 

So it's 2x-2=4 for people of faith. 

And it's 2-2=0 for people without it. 

Now we're getting somewhere.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Sorry but I disagree.
> I thought I knew God once. I believed I "got it"
> I can honestly say I was worse off then.



That is evidence that you really did not know Him.And that faith was not given to you.
If God regenerates you, you become a new creature.And the faith that He gives you can never be taken away.He promised.

But don't despair because you're still breathing.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ahhh, so faith is the X factor that makes 2-2=4, since 2 contradicted 2, but still resulted in a higher value.
> 
> So it's 2x-2=4 for people of faith.
> 
> And it's 2-2=0 for people without it.
> 
> Now we're getting somewhere.



  huh?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> huh?



Forgo religion. Just go with numbers. 

If I told you that 2-2=4 you'd laugh at me, right? 

But what if I told you that I knew of a way to get 2-2 to equal 4 and not be a contradiction, but that you wouldn't understand it and I can't explain it to you. 

So I hold out 2-2=4 as truth, and you just have to accept that I'm right because you're incapable of seeing that "x" factor. 

I'm saying the same things you are, I'm just doing it mathematically and removing God from the discussion. 

The main difference, if you've had algebra, you can solve for X where those of us that are skeptics have tried and found even the X factor to be different than what you've accepted it as. 

See?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> At least, not for people who haven't been given faith yet.
> 
> The ones that don't yet have faith think it's all contradictory nonsense.
> The ones that have faith know it's not, but there's no human possibility of convincing someone without faith.
> 
> It's just that simple.


Welder Im going to call you on this.
You CONSTANTLY spin this around so that you ignore the disagreements between Christians and turn it into to people with no faith  just don't get it.
Welder - over 30,000 denominations in Christianity. Why?
Heres a hint - people with no faith have absolutely nothing to do with it.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Naa.It's mostly people that just outright reject God and take it even a step further and mock Him.Those are the ones who "just do not get it".
> 
> The others, though we may not have all the answers and some of our answers may be wrong, at least are seeking Him the best we can.





> It's mostly people that just outright reject God and take it even a step further and mock Him.Those are the ones who "just do not get it".


Give that some thought.
If someone doesn't believe God exists are they making fun of him? 
Or are they making fun of the stories about him?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> That is evidence that you really did not know Him.And that faith was not given to you.
> If God regenerates you, you become a new creature.And the faith that He gives you can never be taken away.He promised.
> 
> But don't despair because you're still breathing.


All it is evidence of is that I once believed in the God of the bible and now do not.
All that added glitter is just you trying to put it in terms that make sense in your own mind.


----------



## welderguy

Walt,

Do you know anything about the religious pharisees of Jesus' day?
They "seemed" to be religious.And they had a form of religion.But Jesus said they were not of His sheep.
Nothing's changed today.He said there are many false professors that are gone out.
I would bet it's far worse today.All through the scripture you find a pattern of God having a small remnant of true believers.I don't think that's changed either.
In Elijah's day the number got down to only five thousand, I believe.
My point is, you shouldn't judge ALL Christians as a lump whole because that's a huge misjudgement.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Walt,
> 
> Do you know anything about the religious pharisees of Jesus' day?
> They "seemed" to be religious.And they had a form of religion.But Jesus said they were not of His sheep.
> Nothing's changed today.He said there are many false professors that are gone out.
> I would bet it's far worse today.All through the scripture you find a pattern of God having a small remnant of true believers.I don't think that's changed either.
> In Elijah's day the number got down to only five thousand, I believe.
> My point is, you shouldn't judge ALL Christians as a lump whole because that's a huge misjudgement.



So you lived almost 2000 years ago, heard the pharisees and spoke to Jesus?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt,
> 
> Do you know anything about the religious pharisees of Jesus' day?
> They "seemed" to be religious.And they had a form of religion.But Jesus said they were not of His sheep.
> Nothing's changed today.He said there are many false professors that are gone out.
> I would bet it's far worse today.All through the scripture you find a pattern of God having a small remnant of true believers.I don't think that's changed either.
> In Elijah's day the number got down to only five thousand, I believe.
> My point is, you shouldn't judge ALL Christians as a lump whole because that's a huge misjudgement.


So your answer is only a small remnant of Christians have it right.
Now please tell me which denomination(s) that is.


> My point is, you shouldn't judge ALL Christians as a lump whole because that's a huge misjudgement


I don't. If I did, I would think you were all like the Westboro Baptist scum.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> So your answer is only a small remnant of Christians have it right.
> Now please tell me which denomination(s) that is.
> 
> I don't. If I did, I would think you were all like the Westboro Baptist scum.



I believe there may be God's elect in many, if not all the denominations.Even if their doctrine is not completely sound, God's not limited to who He can call.
Having said that, I believe the denominations that hold to the original oracles and principles of the first church set up in the apostle's day are the ones that have the truth.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I believe there may be God's elect in many, if not all the denominations.Even if their doctrine is not completely sound, God's not limited to who He can call.
> Having said that, I believe the denominations that hold to the original oracles and principles of the first church set up in the apostle's day are the ones that have the truth.


And which ones are they?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> And which ones are they?



I'm no expert on this.I only have a small amount of knowledge about some of them.
I do know there are those who follow the imersion baptism, keeping the Lord's supper, and the doctrines of sovereign grace that are holding to the original church oracles. 
That's all I will try to say on that.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I'm no expert on this.I only have a small amount of knowledge about some of them.
> I do know there are those who follow the imersion baptism, keeping the Lord's supper, and the doctrines of sovereign grace that are holding to the original church oracles.
> That's all I will try to say on that.


Well which denomination are you? You keep pointing us to scripture and telling us what it means so surely you know what the truth is?


----------



## welderguy

Primitive Baptist


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Your proclamation shows just how thorough it is. It also affirms that what the Bible says about you is true.



Prove it.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I'm no expert on this.I only have a small amount of knowledge about some of them.
> I do know there are those who follow the imersion baptism, keeping the Lord's supper, and the doctrines of sovereign grace that are holding to the original church oracles.
> That's all I will try to say on that.



Don't be scared.  You won't get in trouble down here.  Which ones got it right and which ones got it wrong.  My in laws are UCC.  Are they going to He11?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Primitive Baptist


It appears that Primitive Baptist and pretty much every other brand of Christianity don't play well together.
So when you claim that non-believers "just don't get it," you really mean "only we get it" don't you?
And which are you - Absolute Predestination, Limited Predestination, Progressive or Universalist?
Apparently you guys follow the "buffet pick what you like" program too.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> It appears that Primitive Baptist and pretty much every other brand of Christianity don't play well together.
> So when you claim that non-believers "just don't get it," you really mean "only we get it" don't you?
> And which are you - Absolute Predestination, Limited Predestination, Progressive or Universalist?
> Apparently you guys follow the "buffet" pick what you like program too.



No Walt he is like original apostles...so he must follow Judaism and the OT with a little bit of oral teachings straight from Jesus since the NT wasn't written yet.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> It appears that Primitive Baptist and pretty much every other brand of Christianity don't play well together.
> So when you claim that non-believers "just don't get it," you really mean "only we get it" don't you?
> And which are you - Absolute Predestination, Limited Predestination, Progressive or Universalist?
> Apparently you guys follow the "buffet pick what you like" program too.



None of these things.
I think someone may be trying to stir up trouble and I want no part of it.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> None of these things.
> I think someone may be trying to stir up trouble and I want no part of it.


I don't get what you mean by "stir up trouble".
Primitive Baptists are divided into those 4 groups.


> The Primitive Baptists can be sub-divided into four main groups: 1)Absolute Predestination; 2) Limited Predestination; 3) Progressive; and (4) Universalists. This last group is the smallest and consists of 5 or 6 small associations in Appalachia that adapted the theory of universal atonement to the doctrines of Primitive Baptists.


You are aware of the history and beliefs of your own denomination right?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> None of these things.
> I think someone may be trying to stir up trouble and I want no part of it.


http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/DoctrineAndPractice.htm


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> None of these things.
> I think someone may be trying to stir up trouble and I want no part of it.



I told you.  You can't get in trouble down here for proclaiming that your particular brand of Christianity is THE right one because this is the place where we don't believe any of it.  So go ahead.  Let 'er rip.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Art, first of all, I hope I didn't offend you.didn't intend to.
> Walt, the reason I said he "muddied the waters" is because it seemed  to me that a lot of what I had already tried to say had been distorted within his questions.
> Maybe because I didn't explain myself clear enough initially.If so, then it's my fault.
> Anyway, it's no big deal.just misunderstanding.



No offense taken. It's been an enjoyable thread. I must say that Primitive Baptist have a very good way of keeping their cool. Y'all are very humble and  never are pushed to anger in these discussions, usually.

Getting back to muddy waters, as someone else said, denominations and various Churches have  done  this way more than any non-believers. Way before I came along.
Where would the Primitive Baptists be without Martin Luther? Y'all would be Primitive Catholics. 

My only point is I don't understand a Primitive Baptist that believes in Limited freewill. Actually I'm beginning to question any Christian that believes in freewill.

I have progressed from a total free will believer to a limited free will believer, and may be headed to a predestination believer. 
The Church may be going through a type of Predestination Reformation. I'll be in like company. We'll see how the truth works out. 
It's funny how when people change their beliefs they do it slowly and progressively. Example would be a futurist becoming a full Preterist but only after becoming a Partial Preterist.

I'm still confused how I'll have the free will to choose my new belief.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> At least, not for people who haven't been given faith yet.
> 
> The ones that don't yet have faith think it's all contradictory nonsense.
> The ones that have faith know it's not, but there's no human possibility of convincing someone without faith.
> 
> It's just that simple.



I'm in trouble as I see the contradictions between freewill and predestination. 
I have the faith to accept these contradictions but I still see them.

Has God blinded you from seeing them or have you elected to ignore the contradictions?

Perhaps the contradictions are there and we must accept that God's ways are not our ways. I thought you mentioned something along these lines earlier? 
Understanding that we can't explain everything and accepting this as truth is far from being blinded that the contradictions exist.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> None of these things.
> I think someone may be trying to stir up trouble and I want no part of it.



This sounds eerily similar to what I said when I was in the 4th grade and a 6th grader was talking about there not being a Santa Claus. He pieced together a few obvious clues that I refused to agree with and I went to bed thinking pretty much the same as your last sentence. Then over the next couple of months more things made sense about what I recently learned and less things made sense about what I thought I absolutely knew.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> No offense taken. It's been an enjoyable thread. I must say that Primitive Baptist have a very good way of keeping their cool. Y'all are very humble and  never are pushed to anger in these discussions, usually.
> 
> Getting back to muddy waters, as someone else said, denominations and various Churches have  done  this way more than any non-believers. Way before I came along.
> Where would the Primitive Baptists be without Martin Luther? Y'all would be Primitive Catholics.
> 
> My only point is I don't understand a Primitive Baptist that believes in Limited freewill. Actually I'm beginning to question any Christian that believes in freewill.
> 
> I have progressed from a total free will believer to a limited free will believer, and may be headed to a predestination believer.
> The Church may be going through a type of Predestination Reformation. I'll be in like company. We'll see how the truth works out.
> It's funny how when people change their beliefs they do it slowly and progressively. Example would be a futurist becoming a full Preterist but only after becoming a Partial Preterist.
> 
> I'm still confused how I'll have the free will to choose my new belief.



It's really refreshing to see you working through your beliefs.  More power to ya.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm in trouble as I see the contradictions between freewill and predestination.
> I have the faith to accept these contradictions but I still see them.
> 
> Has God blinded you from seeing them or have you elected to ignore the contradictions?
> 
> Perhaps the contradictions are there and we must accept that God's ways are not our ways. I thought you mentioned something along these lines earlier?
> Understanding that we can't explain everything and accepting this as truth is far from being blinded that the contradictions exist.



I don't think he did but I did.



ambush80 said:


> You would do well to get to the point in your faith that you can say "Yes. It's contradictory and it doesn't make sense but I believe it anyway." instead of trying to make excuses.
> 
> Just my opinion.



You don't seem like the type that could live with that.  It would stick in your craw.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> I believe there may be God's elect in many, if not all the denominations.Even if their doctrine is not completely sound, God's not limited to who He can call.
> Having said that, I believe the denominations that hold to the original oracles and principles of the first church set up in the apostle's day are the ones that have the truth.



I think it's important to stress that God elects people of all religions and denominations. 
Now after election one should seek the Church that teaches about grace as a means of salvation over works. 
As you mentioned, it's not the denomination that is the Church but the Elect that make up the Church. It's a group of widely spread out individuals.
I'm leaning towards the Universal Primitive Baptists as I now have no freewill. 
I would also say that one of the Elect has the faith and guidance to CHOOSE the good stuff and ignore the bad stuff while attending any Church.
The individual isn't choosing but it is the Holy Spirit within each person that chooses. I guess the Holy Spirit is God's way of guiding the individuals soul through it's predestined destiny!


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I think it's important to stress that God elects people of all religions and denominations.
> Now after election one should seek the Church that teaches about grace as a means of salvation over works.
> As you mentioned, it's not the denomination that is the Church but the Elect that make up the Church. It's a group of widely spread out individuals.
> I'm leaning towards the Universal Primitive Baptists as I now have no freewill.
> I would also say that one of the Elect has the faith and guidance to CHOOSE the good stuff and ignore the bad stuff while attending any Church.
> The individual isn't choosing but it is the Holy Spirit within each person that chooses. I guess the Holy Spirit is God's way of guiding the individuals soul through it's predestined destiny!



Guiding would still imply choices.  As a predestinationist you can't use the word "choose" anymore.

Rethink it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> You don't seem like the type that could live with that.  It would stick in your craw.



It's not my character. But if I give up my free will, I have no character. 
At some point every Christian should  say "Yes. It's contradictory and it doesn't make sense but I believe it anyway." 
If one doesn't see contradictions in the Bible then they are blinded. Either God has done it or they themselves have done it.
I on the other hand have chosen it is contradictory but I believe it anyway. May faith is currently strong enough for me to do this. I think many Christians see the contradictions but aren't willing to admit they see them.
They say they don't exist. I'm sure it's a coping mechanism. 
I remember my way of justifying God being in total control with my freewill was that God put blinders on. He just chose to ignore as a way to not predestine.


----------



## Artfuldodger

This is the way most freewill believers see God granting salvation. God has looked ahead and elected the people he knew would choose him.
The flaw in this is God doesn't base his grace on works. God doesn't choose people who choose him. 

But the real flaw in this way of believing is regardless of God electing whom he wants or God electing only the one's who chose him and God already knew from creation. 
Still where is the individuals choice? It was already made for you either by you or by God. Either way the choice was already made.
Your fate is sealed. God has elected you either from your predestined freewill or his predestined freewill. Now that it has been predestined, it can't be changed. 
Neither by you or God.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Arminianism;

Conditional Election
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner’s choice of Christ, not God’s choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/r...sm/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/

It's already been determined from creation. It very well might appear to be from your freewill but because it has already been decided at creation, what can you do about it now? God perhaps did look ahead and saw that you chose him. He used this foreknowledge to elect you.

What can you do about it now? How or why is the final outcome different from election believers? They say God has mercy on whom he has mercy. They say God is no respecter of man.
Freewill believer say God based his calling on your future works. Freewill believers secretly add themselves into their salvation equation. 
While at the same time repeating that salvation is totally based on God's grace.
While at the same time repeating that God is in total control.
And they think predestination believers see things wrong.

The final answer is it doesn't matter how the individual received his salvation.
It's still from God. I am having a hard time believing God looked ahead and is basing my election on my actions. I guess that is why I'm no longer an Arminian.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> As a predestinationist you can't use the word "choose" anymore.


Sure you can, but you would understand that the choice is predestined.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> Primitive Baptist


Your theology is pretty solid, so I am not surprised by this at all. We had another PB by the name of CollinsCraft77 that was a pleasure to converse with. I haven't heard from him in quite awhile. It is refreshing and I am pleased that you are participating.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Your theology is pretty solid, so I am not surprised by this at all. We had another PB by the name of CollinsCraft77 that was a pleasure to converse with. I haven't heard from him in quite awhile. It is refreshing and I am pleased that you are participating.



I agree he has been a refreshing addition. He handles himself extremely well.
He still is as I am somewhere between free will and total predestination. 
I didn't know there was such an animal in the PB Church!


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> It's not my character. But if I give up my free will, I have no character.
> At some point every Christian should  say "Yes. It's contradictory and it doesn't make sense but I believe it anyway."
> If one doesn't see contradictions in the Bible then they are blinded. Either God has done it or they themselves have done it.
> I on the other hand have chosen it is contradictory but I believe it anyway. May faith is currently strong enough for me to do this. I think many Christians see the contradictions but aren't willing to admit they see them.
> They say they don't exist. I'm sure it's a coping mechanism.
> I remember my way of justifying God being in total control with my freewill was that God put blinders on. He just chose to ignore as a way to not predestine.



Taking the position that you have no freewill changes only your perspective.  You'll do what you do regardless.  You just have a different way of looking at it.  You may end up a vessel of wrath like us and everything will be ok.  You won't have any regrets.  Or you will stay "one of the elect" in your mind and it will still make sense.

The contradictions will still be there but they'll mean something different to you depending on where you end up.  If you end up over here you'll say "Contradictions?  Well, duh."  or you'll figure out some way to be able to say "Contradiction, Contrasmickshun!"


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Sure you can, but you would understand that the choice is predestined.



Like a square circle?


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Sure you can, but you would understand that the choice is predestined.



Is a predestined choice really a choice? If I choose to wear my red shirt over my green shirt and God knew my choice at creation, what other option do I have? 
I must choose my red shirt. Otherwise if I choose my green shirt, I change my destiny. Changing my destiny could altar God's plan.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Is a predestined choice really a choice? If I choose to wear my red shirt over my green shirt and God knew my choice at creation, what other option do I have?
> I must choose my red shirt. Otherwise if I choose my green shirt, I change my destiny. Changing my destiny could altar God's plan.



Why would you even use the word "choose"?  It means there was a possibility of doing something else.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Taking the position that you have no freewill changes only your perspective.  You'll do what you do regardless.  You just have a different way of looking at it.  You may end up a vessel of wrath like us and everything will be ok.  You won't have any regrets.  Or you will stay "one of the elect" in your mind and it will still make sense.
> 
> The contradictions will still be there but they'll mean something different to you depending on where you end up.  If you end up over here you'll say "Contradictions?  Well, duh."  or you'll figure out some way to be able to say "Contradiction, Contrasmickshun!"



But if I do end up as a vessel of wrath, it will be comforting to know that it was from God hardening my heart. In a way it would make me like Jesus. I will have sacrificed my soul or God will have sacrificed my soul to save possibly millions of other souls. 
God will have used me for his purpose. While I'm burning in he!!, it will be comforting to know I'm doing the work of God!
That and it will be somewhat comforting knowing I'm not there because of my predestined choice. God didn't put me there by looking into my future and basing my placement in he!! on future events.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Like a square circle?


Not at all, but your response tells me that you believe a choice can only be one if it is free from any influence.

Watch the video again.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> But if I do end up as a vessel of wrath, it will be comforting to know that it was from God hardening my heart. In a way it would make me like Jesus. I will have sacrificed my soul or God will have sacrificed my soul to save possibly millions of other souls.
> God will have used me for his purpose. While I'm burning in he!!, it will be comforting to know I'm doing the work of God!
> That and it will be somewhat comforting knowing I'm not there because of my predestined choice. God didn't put me there by looking into my future and basing my placement in he!! on future events.



I said it a while back as well.  Even though I don't believe in the god of the Bible it gives me some bizarre comfort to think that if he exists that he made me this way.  He put the doubt in my mind.  He made me unable to trust and obey.  

Ironically, being a vessel of wrath makes having to worry about being a vessel of wrath moot.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> It's really refreshing to see you working through your beliefs.  More power to ya.



I do envy people Christians and Atheist who have figured out what to believe. I even envy the people who just accepted the denominational beliefs they were born into. 

I don't understand why I've questioned my destiny. Especially if I have no freewill. Why burden me with these decisions if my life has already been destined?

Even if my choices were mine but have been predestined by me. If my destiny can't be changed because my choices have already been recorded, choices that I made, choices that God already knows, choices that God is basing my salvation on, etc.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> I said it a while back as well.  Even though I don't believe in the god of the Bible it gives me some bizarre comfort to think that if he exists that he made me this way.  He put the doubt in my mind.  He made me unable to trust and obey.
> 
> Ironically, being a vessel of wrath makes having to worry about being a vessel of wrath moot.



Ironically, being a vessel of honor makes having to worry about being a vessel of honor moot.

We should all be worry free and as you said; our beliefs on freewill or predestiny don't change which is correct.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Not at all, but your response tells me that you believe a choice can only be one if it is free from any influence.
> 
> Watch the video again.



Yeah... that pesky video.   It seems to me that he uses the word "choice" to describe what happens when you perceive the initiation to action with your consciousness.   It's the perception of an option.  It's different than predestination or fate though.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I do envy people Christians and Atheist who have figured out what to believe. I even envy the people who just accepted the denominational beliefs they were born into.
> 
> I don't understand why I've questioned my destiny. Especially if I have no freewill. Why burden me with these decisions if my life has already been destined?
> 
> Even if my choices were mine but have been predestined by me. If my destiny can't be changed because my choices have already been recorded, choices that I made, choices that God already knows, choices that God is basing my salvation on, etc.



Atheists are in a constant state of "figuring out".  It's the nature of the skepticism that brought them there.  I don't envy people who just accept what they were brought up in.  That's like saying that you envy people that haven't left their home town and are happy with MeMa's biscuits and gravy because they've never been to France and had sausage from a 200 year old charcuterie.  You might still love MeMa's biscuits more than anything else but now you know why.  I have a friend just like that.  He says " I don't care about seeing the world.  I like my view from my front porch."  but how would he know?

You question because some people just have a "wandering bone".


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Ironically, being a vessel of honor makes having to worry about being a vessel of honor moot.



Yeah but you don't REALLY know what god's purpose was for you is until your dead.  I still maintain that that is a waste of time and energy.



Artfuldodger said:


> We should all be worry free and as you said; our beliefs on freewill or predestiny don't change which is correct.



But they change how you view the world and how you behave.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Yeah... that pesky video.   It seems to me that he uses the word "choice" to describe what happens when you perceive the initiation to action with your consciousness.   It's the perception of an option.  It's different than predestination or fate though.


I would agree with him that you are going to choose according to that which brings to bear the strongest influence upon the mind.

If one is not free from influence, no freewill.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Not at all, but your response tells me that you believe a choice can only be one if it is free from any influence.
> 
> Watch the video again.



Influence comes in different forms and initiates different parts of your brain.  Harris saying "Pick a movie" is a different kind of influence than being in a dark room and having a flash bang go off next to you.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Influence comes in different forms and initiates different parts of your brain.  Harris saying "Pick a movie" is a different kind of influence than being in a dark room and having a flash bang go off next to you.


But influence nonetheless.


----------



## gemcgrew

And Ambush, just to be clear, I am not equating the brain with the mind. I do not believe that the brain thinks at all.

I would hold to a form of Occasionalism.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> I would agree with him that you are going to choose according to that which brings to bear the strongest influence upon the mind.
> 
> If one is not free from influence, no freewill.



That's what he said.  He wrote a whole book about it.

He also said "The choices that we make in life are as important as fanciers of free will imagine.  Therefore fatalism is untrue.  The idea that the future is gonna be what it's gonna be regardless of what you think and do is clearly untrue."


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> And Ambush, just to be clear, I am not equating the brain with the mind. I do not believe that the brain thinks at all.
> 
> I would hold to a form of Occasionalism.



Of course you do because you believe in god and souls. Specifically the god of the Bible and The Biblical notion of souls.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> That's what he said.  He wrote a whole book about it.
> 
> He also said "The choices that we make in life are as important as fanciers of free will imagine.  Therefore fatalism is untrue.  The idea that the future is gonna be what it's gonna be regardless of what you think and do is clearly untrue."


I would also agree that fatalism is untrue.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> And Ambush, just to be clear, I am not equating the brain with the mind. I do not believe that the brain thinks at all.
> 
> I would hold to a form of Occasionalism.



It would be hard to demonstrate that thinking goes on in a dead brain though.  It's quite easily observed in a live one.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> I would also agree that fatalism is untrue.


_
fatalism
noun fa·tal·ism \-tÉ™-ËŒli-zÉ™m\

: the belief that what will happen has already been decided and cannot be changed_


Sounds an awful lot like:

_predestination
noun pre·des·ti·na·tion \(ËŒ)prÄ“-ËŒdes-tÉ™-ËˆnÄ�-shÉ™n, ËŒprÄ“-des-\

: the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed_

Minus the god part.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> It would be hard to demonstrate that thinking goes on in a bead brain though.  It's quite easily observed in a live one.


I take that you meant dead brain.

I enjoy the conversation and hope to take it up in the morning.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> I take that you meant dead brain.
> 
> I enjoy the conversation and hope to take it up in the morning.



Yeah.  Fixed it.  See ya later.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> _
> fatalism
> noun fa·tal·ism \-tÉ™-ËŒli-zÉ™m\
> 
> : the belief that what will happen has already been decided and cannot be changed_
> 
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like:
> 
> _predestination
> noun pre·des·ti·na·tion \(ËŒ)prÄ“-ËŒdes-tÉ™-ËˆnÄ�-shÉ™n, ËŒprÄ“-des-\
> 
> : the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed_
> 
> Minus the god part.



The definitions within philosophy and theology are more precise than Webster's.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> And Ambush, just to be clear, I am not equating the brain with the mind. I do not believe that the brain thinks at all.
> 
> I would hold to a form of Occasionalism.



Do you believe we think with our hearts? Is the mind a part of the heart?


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Atheists are in a constant state of "figuring out".  It's the nature of the skepticism that brought them there.  I don't envy people who just accept what they were brought up in.  That's like saying that you envy people that haven't left their home town and are happy with MeMa's biscuits and gravy because they've never been to France and had sausage from a 200 year old charcuterie.  You might still love MeMa's biscuits more than anything else but now you know why.  I have a friend just like that.  He says " I don't care about seeing the world.  I like my view from my front porch."  but how would he know?
> 
> You question because some people just have a "wandering bone".



I guess it depends on what is more important; the freedom to taste the French sausage or the security of MeMa's biscuits. 
Personally I do like the security of those biscuits but would love the freedom of the sausage.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Yeah... that pesky video.   It seems to me that he uses the word "choice" to describe what happens when you perceive the initiation to action with your consciousness.   It's the perception of an option.  It's different than predestination or fate though.



Am I seeing a pattern of predestination believers thinking they still have choices?
That is ironic.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would like to know how many people believe things happen at random that we can't control with our freewill or God isn't controlling with his?
I'm not saying God can't control but is he? If a tree falls on my car? Even with freewill the tree has changed my destiny. I must now drive my truck. The truck has bad brakes and I run off the road and kill myself.
I eat in a random restaurant and get food poisoning. It starts raining and I can't finish my outside project. 
Random things and bigger events change our destiny daily. Even with freewill we can't control our destiny. I understand some don't believe God is controlling it but you aren't either. 
So who or what is actually controlling our destiny?

Does God control everything to include Satan, ebola, cancer, cholesterol, vision, hearing, the rain, rockslides, bird poop on cars, etc.? Why do Christians try to eat healthy and get medical screenings? Doesn't God give cancer to whomever he wants?
If God does control everything then it would stand to reason we are a part of his everything. Satan is part of his everything. 

I read a thread above where some fundamental Christians want us to pray that our government will make the Biblical prophesy in the middle east come true.
How do they think that is possible? How can free will change Gods plan? How can prayer or anything actually change God's prophesy?


----------



## Israel

Choices are limited by apprehension.
And provision.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> Am I seeing a pattern of predestination believers thinking they still have choices?
> That is ironic.


Not the "free choices" that you ascribe to.

Art, within Theology, it is actually the one that holds to "freewill" that carries the burden of Fatalism.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Your theology is pretty solid, so I am not surprised by this at all. We had another PB by the name of CollinsCraft77 that was a pleasure to converse with. I haven't heard from him in quite awhile. It is refreshing and I am pleased that you are participating.


Gem Im not sure what denomination you claim to be but I know you have been described (by others) as Calvinist.
So that would put you and PB being very similar but with some differences correct? I think I read that some Calvinist doctrine is shared by PB.


----------



## WaltL1

I'm on the fence with this whole "If God knew what you were going to do then you really didn't have a choice" thing.
My brain is telling me there is a difference between "knowing" whats going to happen and "forcing" whats going to happen.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to know how many people believe things happen at random that we can't control with our freewill or God isn't controlling with his?
> I'm not saying God can't control but is he? If a tree falls on my car? Even with freewill the tree has changed my destiny. I must now drive my truck. The truck has bad brakes and I run off the road and kill myself.
> I eat in a random restaurant and get food poisoning. It starts raining and I can't finish my outside project.
> Random things and bigger events change our destiny daily. Even with freewill we can't control our destiny. I understand some don't believe God is controlling it but you aren't either.
> So who or what is actually controlling our destiny?
> 
> Does God control everything to include Satan, ebola, cancer, cholesterol, vision, hearing, the rain, rockslides, bird poop on cars, etc.? Why do Christians try to eat healthy and get medical screenings? Doesn't God give cancer to whomever he wants?
> If God does control everything then it would stand to reason we are a part of his everything. Satan is part of his everything.
> 
> I read a thread above where some fundamental Christians want us to pray that our government will make the Biblical prophesy in the middle east come true.
> How do they think that is possible? How can free will change Gods plan? How can prayer or anything actually change God's prophesy?


Just think about the complexity of what you are saying when you give those scenarios just involving you...then compound them with every person they effect and every person after that like a huge ripple effect that impacts 30 or more different people. And people honestly think it was all planned out eons ago?
The tree falls on your car so you take the truck with bad brakes and get into an accident. You are killed. It sends each individual close to you in an immediate change of course. Maybe your wife remarries and the guy is abusive. Was it planned for her to be a punching bag? The kids hate the new dad so they dont associate with mom when they are older missing out on vital family time and on and on and on.
The ins adjuster that came to check on your car with the tree on it was delayed 3 minutes by a train so he gets to the gas station where he normally gets his morning coffee 3 minutes later and now it is being robbed. He is an eyewitness so the police detain him and he never gets to your car that day.
The robber is later sent to jail and his children take up a life of crime themselves to make ends meet.
The police officer that responded at the end if his shift had to stay longer and it was the last straw for his wife who now decides to leave him for some guy she met online....
Did God plan every second of every day for you, the ins adjuster  and the train conductor and the robber  and his kids and the police officer and his wife....and every other individual person on the planet that was indirectly affected by the actions of another that literally happens millions of times every minute of every hour of every day?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!?????

Sounds like some giant game on a smart phone.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Just think about the complexity of what you are saying when you give those scenarios just involving you...then compound them with every person they effect and every person after that like a huge ripple effect that impacts 30 or more different people. And people honestly think it was all planned out eons ago?
> The tree falls on your car so you take the truck with bad brakes and get into an accident. You are killed. It sends each individual close to you in an immediate change of course. Maybe your wife remarries and the guy is abusive. Was it planned for her to be a punching bag? The kids hate the new dad so they dont associate with mom when they are older missing out on vital family time and on and on and on.
> The ins adjuster that came to check on your car with the tree on it was delayed 3 minutes by a train so he gets to the gas station where he normally gets his morning coffee 3 minutes later and now it is being robbed. He is an eyewitness so the police detain him and he never gets to your car that day.
> The robber is later sent to jail and his children take up a life of crime themselves to make ends meet.
> The police officer that responded at the end if his shift had to stay longer and it was the last straw for his wife who now decides to leave him for some guy she met online....
> Did God plan every second of every day for you, the ins adjuster  and the train conductor and the robber  and his kids and the police officer and his wife....and every other individual person on the planet that was indirectly affected by the actions of another that literally happens millions of times every minute of every hour of every day?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!?????
> 
> Sounds like some giant game on a smart phone.



At this point I would urge you to read Isaiah 40.It tells us a lot about how big and complex God is and how miniscule and weak man is.It puts it in proper perspective.

Or not....it's up to you.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> At this point I would urge you to read Isaiah 40.It tells us a lot about how big and complex God is and how miniscule and weak man is.It puts it in proper perspective.
> 
> Or not....it's up to you.



Welderguy, I have read the Bible. I have read it cover to cover a few times. I reference it when I feel it is necessary.

If I believed ANY of it actually has anything to do with a god we would not be having this conversation now.

I think that all it is a collection of ancient writings that were penned separately over the course of 1,600 years and assembled together to kind of/sort of link stories together which tell of a cultures struggles to become a nation. 
None of it Divine
None of it anything more than man made.

Isaiah 40 is a mans attempt at making excuses for and  explaining an unexplainable, uninvolved deity that does not exist. Just like the rest of the book.

If you want to convince me otherwise you are going to have to show me something outside of of a bunch of useless verses. 
I can show you similar verses from various religions with some being thousands of years older than your religion...and for the same reasons you will scoff at and dismiss those verses, I scoff at and dismiss yours.


----------



## WaltL1

> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welderguy, I have read the Bible. I have read it cover to cover a few times. I reference it when I feel it is necessary.
> 
> If I believed ANY of it actually has anything to do with a god we would not be having this conversation now.
> 
> I think that all it is a collection of ancient writings that were penned separately over the course of 1,600 years and assembled together to kind of/sort of link stories together which tell of a cultures struggles to become a nation.
> None of it Divine
> None of it anything more than man made.
> 
> Isaiah 40 is a mans attempt at making excuses for and  explaining an unexplainable, uninvolved deity that does not exist. Just like the rest of the book.
> 
> If you want to convince me otherwise you are going to have to show me something outside of of a bunch of useless verses.
> I can show you similar verses from various religions with some being thousands of years older than your religion...and for the same reasons you will scoff at and dismiss those verses, I scoff at and dismiss yours.QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even have to go that far. Just show him any other Bible than the King James.
> NOTE - this subject is not allowed upstairs so PLEASE ANYBODY don't turn this into a which Bible is correct debate.
Click to expand...


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Welderguy, I have read the Bible. I have read it cover to cover a few times. I reference it when I feel it is necessary.
> 
> If I believed ANY of it actually has anything to do with a god we would not be having this conversation now.
> 
> I think that all it is a collection of ancient writings that were penned separately over the course of 1,600 years and assembled together to kind of/sort of link stories together which tell of a cultures struggles to become a nation.
> None of it Divine
> None of it anything more than man made.
> 
> Isaiah 40 is a mans attempt at making excuses for and  explaining an unexplainable, uninvolved deity that does not exist. Just like the rest of the book.
> 
> If you want to convince me otherwise you are going to have to show me something outside of of a bunch of useless verses.
> I can show you similar verses from various religions with some being thousands of years older than your religion...and for the same reasons you will scoff at and dismiss those verses, I scoff at and dismiss yours.



Ha.that's why I said "or not".just for you Bullet.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> I'm on the fence with this whole "If God knew what you were going to do then you really didn't have a choice" thing.
> My brain is telling me there is a difference between "knowing" whats going to happen and "forcing" whats going to happen.



There is no difference in the final outcome. Whether God knows what will happen or forces it to happen, it still can't be altered.
A predestined free will choice isn't really a choice.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> There is no difference in the final outcome. Whether God knows what will happen or forces it to happen, it still can't be altered.


I agree with that part.
But there is a difference between forcing and knowing.
God doesn't have to actually do anything to know what the outcome is.
Whereas forcing it to happen requires participation on Gods part.
And again this is just what my brain is telling me. Im not claiming it to be correct or not.


----------



## WaltL1

Welder -
Im curious, this question seemed to offend you -


> And which are you - Absolute Predestination, Limited Predestination, Progressive or Universalist?





> None of these things.
> I think someone may be trying to stir up trouble and I want no part of it.


Is it inaccurate that there are those sub-categories of PB?
Did you not know there were?
Do you kind of have your own beliefs and don't fit into on of those?
Some other reason?
Its odd that you consider that stirring up trouble is why I ask.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I agree with that part.
> But there is a difference between forcing and knowing.
> God doesn't have to actually do anything to know what the outcome is.
> Whereas forcing it to happen requires participation on Gods part.
> And again this is just what my brain is telling me. Im not claiming it to be correct or not.




That there is "someone" that knows the future negates the reality of choices (does Goldilocks REALLY have a choice?).  Also according to Harris, if the choices you make are the culmination of thing in the passed and that you have no control over then there's no freewill.

Biblically the issue is the sovereignty of god.  It has to do with the whole "Book of Life" thing and the notion that he's in control of everything (ABSOLUTELY Biblical).

One is knowing and the other is forcing.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Ha.that's why I said "or not".just for you Bullet.



Are you aware of this?

_
"I can show you similar verses from various religions with some being thousands of years older than your religion...."_


----------



## JB0704

JB0704 said:


> Give it some time, Griz......this thread should take off eventually.



See.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> That there is "someone" that knows the future negates the reality of choices (does Goldilocks REALLY have a choice?).  Also according to Harris, if the choices you make are the culmination of thing in the passed and that you have no control over then there's no freewill.
> 
> Biblically the issue is the sovereignty of god.  It has to do with the whole "Book of Life" thing and the notion that he's in control of everything (ABSOLUTELY Biblical).
> 
> One is knowing and the other is forcing.





> That there is "someone" that knows the future negates the reality of choices


That's where Im still not convinced. This thought process links choices and knowing together as though they are dependent on each other.
My thought process is telling me they can be separated.
For example -
View your life as a movie being made. God just so happens to have the ability to see into the future and know the entire movie and how the movie ends. The End.
In this movie of your life being made you go along making your choices and it ends how it ends.
How did God or "someone" knowing what your choices were going to be limit you in any way?
They simply already knew what your choices were going to be because thy already saw the movie of your life.
God's ability to see into the future (or so its said) is the key here.


> Also according to Harris, if the choices you make are the culmination of thing in the passed and that you have no control over then there's no freewill.


IF being the key word here.
Lots of examples of one growing up in abject poverty, child abuse, parents being Neo Nazis etc etc, all of which certainly would be engrained in your brain, growing up to be successful, loving and tolerant of other people parents or individuals etc etc.
That would mean they either wrote over what was there or its still there but pushed that to the back and are accessing the "new" information to live their lives.
Is that freewill or not? I don't know.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> That's where Im still not convinced. This thought process links choices and knowing together as though they are dependent on each other.
> My thought process is telling me they can be separated.
> For example -
> View your life as a movie being made. God just so happens to have the ability to see into the future and know the entire movie and how the movie ends. The End.
> In this movie of your life being made you go along making your choices and it ends how it ends.
> How did God or "someone" knowing what your choices were going to be limit you in any way?
> They simply already knew what your choices were going to be because thy already saw the movie of your life.
> God's ability to see into the future (or so its said) is the key here.



Tom Hanks will die in Saving Private Ryan.  He will. He holds the bridge.  Every time.  He has no choice.

When you first saw the movie it seemed like he had a choice because you didn't know what would happen.  From our perspective we have choices because we aren't omniscient.  If you inject an omniscient being then there's no freewill.



WaltL1 said:


> IF being the key word here.
> Lots of examples of one growing up in abject poverty, child abuse, parents being Neo Nazis etc etc, all of which certainly would be engrained in your brain, growing up to be successful, loving and tolerant of other people parents or individuals etc etc.
> That would mean they either wrote over what was there or its still there but pushed that to the back and are accessing the "new" information to live their lives.
> Is that freewill or not? I don't know.



He declares it with more certainty than I can at present.  I'm still working through his logic.  

Help......


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Tom Hanks will die in Saving Private Ryan.  He will. He holds the bridge.  Every time.  He has no choice.
> 
> When you first saw the movie it seemed like he had a choice because you didn't know what would happen.  From our perspective we have choices because we aren't omniscient.  If you inject an omniscient being then there's no freewill.
> 
> 
> 
> He declares it with more certainty than I can at present.  I'm still working through his logic.
> 
> Help......





> Tom Hanks will die in Saving Private Ryan.  He will. He holds the bridge.  Every time.  He has no choice.


That's because he chose that 


> Help......


Cant.
The example I gave keeps me from buying into it completely.
I think Sams position and the religious position are the same in that the answer isn't known yet.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Tom Hanks will die in Saving Private Ryan.  He will. He holds the bridge.  Every time.  He has no choice.
> 
> When you first saw the movie it seemed like he had a choice because you didn't know what would happen.  From our perspective we have choices because we aren't omniscient.  If you inject an omniscient being then there's no freewill.
> 
> He declares it with more certainty than I can at present.  I'm still working through his logic.
> 
> Help......



I would have to agree, if anyone has seen or read the book of my life through omniscience then there is no way for me to rewrite it. Using salvation as an example, if God already knows if I will be saved then how can I venture from his knowledge?
If I venture from what God has already written in his book, then he has to constantly erase my life story. How often would he do this, every night while I sleep? Let's say he isn't writing the plot, he is just recording it as he foresaw it. Now if God has already seen my life and my choices, and I change my choices, God has to change to meet my changes. His plan would be dependent on my plan.
If he didn't foresee the Jews crucifying Jesus or they changed their mind, then God would have had to come up with another plan for our salvation. If Jesus had changed his mind, God would have to send another messiah. If Adam had changed his mind and not sinned, God's plan in his "mind/Word"  of sending Jesus would not be true.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> That there is "someone" that knows the future negates the reality of choices (does Goldilocks REALLY have a choice?).  Also according to Harris, if the choices you make are the culmination of thing in the passed and that you have no control over then there's no freewill.
> 
> Biblically the issue is the sovereignty of god.  It has to do with the whole "Book of Life" thing and the notion that he's in control of everything (ABSOLUTELY Biblical).
> 
> One is knowing and the other is forcing.



I don't see how any freewill believer can believe their future is not based on their past. Past to include the example of the tree falling on my car.
What about a past of overeating not affecting one's future?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> That's because he chose that
> 
> Cant.
> The example I gave keeps me from buying into it completely.
> I think Sams position and the religious position are the same in that the answer isn't known yet.



How so with the example you gave?

The Sovereignty of God person's position is that God put the thought in your head.  As far as I can tell, Sam claims that the thoughts just come form nowhere.  I think that's what he's saying anyway.  

I haven't been able to find a crack in his reasoning but I'm not ready to "helplessly believe" as he puts it.  

Even if what he says is true I haven't been able to see a use for it in practical application other than what he suggests about punishment.  It didn't change my SOP of "Poop happens".  Nor did it change the fact that I think that I can do things to improve my state, which he also says is possible.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> I agree with that part.
> But there is a difference between forcing and knowing.
> God doesn't have to actually do anything to know what the outcome is.
> Whereas forcing it to happen requires participation on Gods part.
> And again this is just what my brain is telling me. Im not claiming it to be correct or not.



Force can be defined as "power brought to bear" or "cause".

In the beginning God created...

What He knows is inevitable.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Gem Im not sure what denomination you claim to be but I know you have been described (by others) as Calvinist.
> So that would put you and PB being very similar but with some differences correct? I think I read that some Calvinist doctrine is shared by PB.


I am Baptist, but that doesn't tell you much anymore. I have differences with PB, but they would seldom come up in conversation.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> I am Baptist, but that doesn't tell you much anymore. I have differences with PB, but they would seldom come up in conversation.


Well it tells me you aren't Catholic or Jewish but that's about it 
Im wondering, you guys seem to be noncommittal about this question. Welder is avoiding it like the plague.
The thought pops into my head, to use my previous buffet analogy, that one reason for that could be you want to avoid the limited menu so that you can pick and choose from the buffet of what you like but still fall under Baptist. Or that you know that your beliefs
may be a combination that encompass several subcategories. Which would be an example of picking and choosing that A/As often claim is something we observe from you guys.
And please give at least a second of thought before you reject it as ridiculous


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> I would have to agree, if anyone has seen or read the book of my life through omniscience then there is no way for me to rewrite it. Using salvation as an example, if God already knows if I will be saved then how can I venture from his knowledge?
> If I venture from what God has already written in his book, then he has to constantly erase my life story. How often would he do this, every night while I sleep? Let's say he isn't writing the plot, he is just recording it as he foresaw it. Now if God has already seen my life and my choices, and I change my choices, God has to change to meet my changes. His plan would be dependent on my plan.
> If he didn't foresee the Jews crucifying Jesus or they changed their mind, then God would have had to come up with another plan for our salvation. If Jesus had changed his mind, God would have to send another messiah. If Adam had changed his mind and not sinned, God's plan in his "mind/Word"  of sending Jesus would not be true.





> if anyone has seen or read the book of my life through omniscience then there is no way for me to rewrite it.


Art I know you are a thinker so Im going to throw a question at you. There is no right or wrong Im just interested in what you come up with.
Is it possible that you are now limiting God's choices? In other words just because God is omniscience, you are assuming that he used it. The position you are taking depends on it. 
That would be eliminating his choice not to use it.
Thoughts?


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Well it tells me you aren't Catholic or Jewish but that's about it
> Im wondering, you guys seem to be noncommittal about this question. Welder is avoiding it like the plague.
> The thought pops into my head, to use my previous buffet analogy, that one reason for that could be you want to avoid the limited menu so that you can pick and choose from the buffet of what you like but still fall under Baptist. Or that you know that your beliefs
> may be a combination that encompass several subcategories. Which would be an example of picking and choosing that A/As often claim is something we observe from you guys.
> And please give at least a second of thought before you reject it as ridiculous


What is the question?


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Art I know you are a thinker so Im going to throw a question at you. There is no right or wrong Im just interested in what you come up with.
> Is it possible that you are now limiting God's choices? In other words just because God is omniscience, you are assuming that he used it. The position you are taking depends on it.
> That would be eliminating his choice not to use it.
> Thoughts?



I have already thought of that question. Back when I believed in Total free will and realized God controlled things in the Bible, I wondered how he controlled some things going on today and other things he let me control. 
This is when I switched to believing in limited free will. God controlled what he wanted to and put on blinders to let me have some control. We make up all kinds of things in our minds to justify and explain things. When we get frustrated with this concept we just say, well we don't fully understand our free will working with God's will. 
My reasoning of God not using his omniscience was him wearing blinders. He just chooses to ignore his omniscience. He just ignores Satan. He ignores cancer, he ignores natural disasters. He let's all kinds of terrible things happen and then changes his mind if we pray. Well he can change his mind if he wants to under my old way of believing.

I don't believe omniscience is something God can turn off.
It's like gravity or the basic elements. God must operate under the boundaries he created. Maybe these boundaries were before his creation. God uses science to create. We don't have unusual things made of unusual elements living outside of these basic scientific laws or boundaries.
I'm explaining this to show that God operates under boundaries. God is bound to operate under omniscience. God is bound to create under the basic scientific laws using the already present elements.
God is spirit. Perhaps spirit is energy. Whatever or however God and life operates is set in stone. Nothing can change. God can't turn off his omniscience. I'm not limiting God, he has limited himself. He must operate under Universal Law. God can appear as a human or a bush but he can't become a human or a bush. God is spirit, remember. This is hard for 99% of Christians to accept. They believe Jesus was God. He was only the image of God.

Wow, I didn't mean to ramble on to a basic question.
In closing God's omniscience doesn't take away from his power. 
OK a question for you, would you like to have omniscience?
Would it be a curse or blessing? How would it affect your free will? Would you choose to ignore it if you could? Not that I think you would have that ability if you had it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I was reading Sam Harris' blog titled "Life without free will" and I'll present some questions from it. 

Would life with out free will have terrible consequences? Would people stop being good to each other? Would they have no morals?
Notice some of the same questions Christians ask about Atheism?

If people didn't have free will wouldn't they do whatever they want, assuming that it’s pointless to resist temptation or that there’s no difference between good and evil? 
My thoughts, if you didn't have free will how could you do whatever you wanted?

Is good and evil dependent upon free will?

Is free will needed to form our destiny? Does free will make us who we are and who we become?

OK that's a few questions. Read the blog and see if you can explain this excerpt from the blog to me as it pertains to responsibility. I'm having trouble with predestination and individual responsibility.

From the blog; 
If we cannot assign blame to the workings of the universe, how can evil people be held responsible for their actions? In the deepest sense, it seems, they can’t be. But in a practical sense, they must be. I see no contradiction in this.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/life-without-free-will


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> I have already thought of that question. Back when I believed in Total free will and realized God controlled things in the Bible, I wondered how he controlled some things going on today and other things he let me control.
> This is when I switched to believing in limited free will. God controlled what he wanted to and put on blinders to let me have some control. We make up all kinds of things in our minds to justify and explain things. When we get frustrated with this concept we just say, well we don't fully understand our free will working with God's will.
> My reasoning of God not using his omniscience was him wearing blinders. He just chooses to ignore his omniscience. He just ignores Satan. He ignores cancer, he ignores natural disasters. He let's all kinds of terrible things happen and then changes his mind if we pray. Well he can change his mind if he wants to under my old way of believing.
> 
> I don't believe omniscience is something God can turn off.
> It's like gravity or the basic elements. God must operate under the boundaries he created. Maybe these boundaries were before his creation. God uses science to create. We don't have unusual things made of unusual elements living outside of these basic scientific laws or boundaries.
> I'm explaining this to show that God operates under boundaries. God is bound to operate under omniscience. God is bound to create under the basic scientific laws using the already present elements.
> God is spirit. Perhaps spirit is energy. Whatever or however God and life operates is set in stone. Nothing can change. God can't turn off his omniscience. I'm not limiting God, he has limited himself. He must operate under Universal Law. God can appear as a human or a bush but he can't become a human or a bush. God is spirit, remember. This is hard for 99% of Christians to accept. They believe Jesus was God. He was only the image of God.
> 
> Wow, I didn't mean to ramble on to a basic question.
> In closing God's omniscience doesn't take away from his power.
> OK a question for you, would you like to have omniscience?
> Would it be a curse or blessing? How would it affect your free will? Would you choose to ignore it if you could? Not that I think you would have that ability if you had it.


I'm not ignoring anything else you said but this -


> I don't believe omniscience is something God can turn off.


is what it all boils down to.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I was reading Sam Harris' blog titled "Life without free will" and I'll present some questions from it.
> 
> Would life with out free will have terrible consequences? Would people stop being good to each other? Would they have no morals?
> Notice some of the same questions Christians ask about Atheism?
> 
> If people didn't have free will wouldn't they do whatever they want, assuming that it’s pointless to resist temptation or that there’s no difference between good and evil?
> My thoughts, if you didn't have free will how could you do whatever you wanted?
> 
> Is good and evil dependent upon free will?
> 
> Is free will needed to form our destiny? Does free will make us who we are and who we become?
> 
> OK that's a few questions. Read the blog and see if you can explain this excerpt from the blog to me as it pertains to responsibility. I'm having trouble with predestination and individual responsibility.
> 
> From the blog;
> If we cannot assign blame to the workings of the universe, how can evil people be held responsible for their actions? In the deepest sense, it seems, they can’t be. But in a practical sense, they must be. I see no contradiction in this.
> 
> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/life-without-free-will



He said you don't incarcerate the person to punish them for murdering.  You incarcerate them because they are a murderer.  That's what they are.

"We could forget about retribution and concentrate entirely on mitigating harm. (And if punishing people proved important for either deterrence or rehabilitation, we could make prison as unpleasant as required.) "

He's talking about torture and public execution.


----------



## welderguy

gemcgrew said:


> What is the question?



Walt, I too would like to know what you are asking.what am I avoiding like the plague?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt, I too would like to know what you are asking.what am I avoiding like the plague?





> what am I avoiding like the plague?


Post # 150. So I asked again in Post # 205.


> I too would like to know what you are asking


.
I didn't ask a question. I offered up a theory.


> Im wondering, you guys seem to be noncommittal about this question. Welder is avoiding it like the plague.
> The thought pops into my head, to use my previous buffet analogy, that one reason for that could be you want to avoid the limited menu so that you can pick and choose from the buffet of what you like but still fall under Baptist. Or that you know that your beliefs
> may be a combination that encompass several subcategories. Which would be an example of picking and choosing that A/As often claim is something we observe from you guys.



Having said that Im perfectly aware that you don't have to answer or respond to anything you don't want to.


----------



## welderguy

Walt,
I didn't intentionally mean to ignore your question.After looking back at those posts, I recall that it seemed like others (not you)were trying to get me to "sling mud" at other denominations that didn't believe like I do.I wanted no part in any "mud slinging".

But, to answer your question, I am an absolute predestination believer.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> See.



You nailed it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not ignoring anything else you said but this -
> 
> "I don't believe omniscience is something God can turn off."
> 
> is what it all boils down to.



I just come to the realization that because of omniscience, God doesn't have freewill either.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Walt,
> I didn't intentionally mean to ignore your question.After looking back at those posts, I recall that it seemed like others (not you)were trying to get me to "sling mud" at other denominations that didn't believe like I do.I wanted no part in any "mud slinging".
> 
> But, to answer your question, I am an absolute predestination believer.



If I recall you believe we still have choices. I can only assume you believe these choices we make were predetermined? If God allows us to make choices then isn't that freewill? If we have responsibility, isn't free will needed?


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> If I recall you believe we still have choices. I can only assume you believe these choices we make were predetermined? If God allows us to make choices then isn't that freewill? If we have responsibility, isn't free will needed?





In man's finite world that is governed by time, we have a definate responsibility and comandment to make right choices as opposed to evil ones.God doesn't force us to sin.Although, He allows it.And He has predetermined those choices.That's why He says in
Prov.16:9"A man's heart deviseth his ways:but the Lord directeth his steps."
Another key thing you must keep in mind is God is not bound by time as we are.He knows the beginning from the end and everything in between.And it all works for His purpose.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Walt,
> I didn't intentionally mean to ignore your question.After looking back at those posts, I recall that it seemed like others (not you)were trying to get me to "sling mud" at other denominations that didn't believe like I do.I wanted no part in any "mud slinging".
> 
> But, to answer your question, I am an absolute predestination believer.





> were trying to get me to "sling mud" at other denominations that didn't believe like I do.I wanted no part in any "mud slinging".


That's commendable. I assume you look at it like you all believe in God regardless of denomination and that's whats most important.
On the other hand, Ive been doing some reading and watching videos and, in general, PB have some pretty strong views about other denominations and the accuracy and "truthfulness" of their beliefs and are quite vocal about it and not in a nice way.
But I don't hold you responsible for what others might say. On the other hand when people claim a certain denomination you cant get around what that denomination believes.
Must be a tricky situation some times.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> I just come to the realization that because of omniscience, God doesn't have freewill either.


That's an interesting view point.
But just an observation from a nonbelievers point of view would be that that would be a "limitation" of God's powers. We always hear that God can do anything or has unlimited power.
And Im not challenging your view point, just making an observation.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> But, to answer your question, I am an absolute predestination believer.


I hold to Double Predestination. Not that there is a difference, but just to clarify.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> That's commendable. I assume you look at it like you all believe in God regardless of denomination and that's whats most important.
> On the other hand, Ive been doing some reading and watching videos and, in general, PB have some pretty strong views about other denominations and the accuracy and "truthfulness" of their beliefs and are quite vocal about it and not in a nice way.
> But I don't hold you responsible for what others might say. On the other hand when people claim a certain denomination you cant get around what that denomination believes.
> Must be a tricky situation some times.



Yes.that's why I was hesitant to tell my denomination because the name "primitive baptist" has taken some strange splits that don't represent all.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Yes.that's why I was hesitant to tell my denomination because the name "primitive baptist" has taken some strange splits that don't represent all.


Understandable but give us a little more credit. The reason we harp on trying to get you to tell us what YOU think instead of quoting scripture is because we are trying to understand YOU the individual.
I promise you we aren't rabid dogs in this forum. We will seriously challenge what you say and what you believe but in the end, if you were drowning in front of us, we would throw you a life jacket not an anchor.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> That's an interesting view point.
> But just an observation from a nonbelievers point of view would be that that would be a "limitation" of God's powers. We always hear that God can do anything or has unlimited power.
> And Im not challenging your view point, just making an observation.



It's another of many religious enigmas. I've never known of God to change. We've had many discussions about God changing his mind, or changing his plans as we change ours.
Plan "A" was for Adam not to sin. God waited and after Adam sinned God went with Jesus who was plan "B".
God knows the end of time but somehow is waiting on all of his elect to be reconciled. Is God waiting on himself?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> In man's finite world that is governed by time, we have a definate responsibility and comandment to make right choices as opposed to evil ones.God doesn't force us to sin.Although, He allows it.And He has predetermined those choices.That's why He says in
> Prov.16:9"A man's heart deviseth his ways:but the Lord directeth his steps."
> Another key thing you must keep in mind is God is not bound by time as we are.He knows the beginning from the end and everything in between.And it all works for His purpose.



That sounds the same as Limited freewill. God doesn't force but allows. 

Prov. 16:9 talks of God's guidance, not forced destiny.

On predetermined choices; If God has foreknowledge that one choice within a set of choices will be made, then the outcome is as binding as “Destiny” or “Fate."

I agree God isn't bound by time but he does already know our "time." We are bound by time. God already knows our "boundness."

Please tell me how your beliefs are different from Limited free will? Why can't you say you just don't understand how God does this? Why not just say God is in total control but somehow has gave me predetermined choices? I do not fully understand how God does this.

I have FAITH and therefore don't have to fully understand.
This sounds better than saying "not everyone is elected and this is why you don't understand." It makes me feel like I'm not elected because I don't fully understand but after hearing you discuss this, you don't understand it any better than I do.
We've both just accepted that we don't fully understand.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> I hold to Double Predestination. Not that there is a difference, but just to clarify.



I don't feel  Welderguy believes this. I'm 100% sure you are an absolute predestination believer.

I'm OK with that as we all differ on everything else, just pointing out all of the degrees of predestination and the paradox of the degrees.
Limited freewill and/or limited predestination are paradoxes.


----------



## welderguy

Art, I don't think anyone understands it all fully.Even the apostle Paul said "Not that I have obtained"
God's ways are "past finding out" "who can know it"
I can't judge your heart whether you're elect.You have to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"
But, I assure you, I have seen much fruit that you are bearing, and because of that, I encourage you to keep seeking and digging.Lean not unto thine own understanding but on the power of God.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Art, I don't think anyone understands it all fully.Even the apostle Paul said "Not that I have obtained"
> God's ways are "past finding out" "who can know it"




"Can god make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?"  

The answer MUST be "Yes he can" because he's god and he can do anything.  You don't have to understand how.  




welderguy said:


> I can't judge your heart whether you're elect.You have to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling"
> But, I assure you, I have seen much fruit that you are bearing, and because of that, I encourage you to keep seeking and digging.Lean not unto thine own understanding but on the power of God.



Basically, "You can't figure it out.  Quit messing around with that useless 'thinking' nonsense.  Leave those silly questions at the foot of the cross".


----------



## Artfuldodger

I have a lot in common with these Primitive Baptists Universalists. They parted ways  mostly over not believing in He!! as eternal punishment. This is something I agree with.
They don't believe the Bible is literal that some of it is parables and historic only.
They also believe Jesus died for everyone which most Primitive Baptists don't agree with. Well most Christians don't believe Jesus death is universal. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

PBU's are conservative evangelicals, with the faith in universal redemption, a denial of any kind of punishment after death, and an assurance that the cross of Christ saves all people, past, present, and future. They also seem to practice foot washing as a sacrament. 

They believe that Satan is "natural man" warring against "spiritual man." For each of us, our "dark side" is Satan.
We've discussed this recent in an above forum. 

They are known locally as "No He!!ers." We've discussed them but it's been awhile. 

Christ’s atonement was for all humankind and at Resurrection will irrevocably come to pass for all humankind.

There is an "elect," Christ’s Church which has been separated from the rest of God’s people here in time.

Interesting to me is they are fundamental country folk and not liberal city slickers.
I wonder it they'd let a Flat Lander like me join their Church?


----------



## 660griz

Is it safe to say that all denominations believe in the Bible, they just pick out different sections to believe or believe in different interpretations?


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> I have a lot in common with these Primitive Baptists Universalists. They parted ways  mostly over not believing in He!! as eternal punishment. This is something I agree with.
> They don't believe the Bible is literal that some of it is parables and historic only.
> They also believe Jesus died for everyone which most Primitive Baptists don't agree with. Well most Christians don't believe Jesus death is universal. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.
> 
> PBU's are conservative evangelicals, with the faith in universal redemption, a denial of any kind of punishment after death, and an assurance that the cross of Christ saves all people, past, present, and future. They also seem to practice foot washing as a sacrament.
> 
> They believe that Satan is "natural man" warring against "spiritual man." For each of us, our "dark side" is Satan.
> We've discussed this recent in an above forum.
> 
> They are known locally as "No He!!ers." We've discussed them but it's been awhile.
> 
> Christ’s atonement was for all humankind and at Resurrection will irrevocably come to pass for all humankind.
> 
> There is an "elect," Christ’s Church which has been separated from the rest of God’s people here in time.
> 
> Interesting to me is they are fundamental country folk and not liberal city slickers.
> I wonder it they'd let a Flat Lander like me join their Church?




I don't know anybody that has those kinds of crazy beliefs but I'll take your word for it.
Like I said earlier, there were some strange splits but I don't want to be misrepresented  as having those beliefs.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I don't know anybody that has those kinds of crazy beliefs but I'll take your word for it.
> Like I said earlier, there were some strange splits but I don't want to be misrepresented  as having those beliefs.


Yes the original split was over the introduction of Theological seminaries, Missionary societies and Sunday schools.
The PBs didn't believe the Bible called for those type of things and split away from the Baptist over it and became known as Primitive Baptists. 
Although Primitive is now also divided up and one of its denominations does allow for those type of things.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Yes.that's why I was hesitant to tell my denomination because the name "primitive baptist" has taken some strange splits that don't represent all.



Why do you think they are crazy? Many Christians don't believe human spirits will literally burn forever. Salvation is from escaping death. 

It would be hard to take everything in the Bible as literal. 

Satan's evil can only manifest itself in man. Satan can't create. He can't create Ebola or steer a tornado.

God wishes none to perish. Under the free will belief, people choose God. Under the election belief, God chooses people. Under the Universal Redemption belief God chooses everyone. God wills that all people shall have life, and shall be converted to the knowledge of the truth. 

Universal salvation is way better than free will which leaves salvation up to man.
Primitive Baptist election has God offering only certain individuals election based on no reason except God is God.

Primitive Baptist Universalist has God doing all of his electing, punishments, and rewards in the present life and salvation for everyone. If God can and does elect one Hindu, why can't he elect all of the Hindus?
Why can't he grant salvation to everyone? 
This can still be in line with the belief of predestination.
I could understand a free will believer not believing in universal salvation more than a predestination believer.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> Yes the original split was over the introduction of Theological seminaries, Missionary societies and Sunday schools.
> The PBs didn't believe the Bible called for those type of things and split away from the Baptist over it and became known as Primitive Baptists.
> Although Primitive is now also divided up and one of its denominations does allow for those type of things.



If God looks ahead and chooses individuals who have chosen him, I wonder why Arminianism denominations use missionaries? I never though about how weird Christian free will is until really thinking about it.
I can understand free will from an Atheist prospective but from a Christian prospective, it doesn't make any sense. 
At least from the Arminianism prospective of God basing his election on his omniscience of our future actions. I wonder if there are any non-Arminian free will denominations?

Even if I stick with a free will belief, I won't believe as the Arminians that God looked ahead at my actions or choice. There are just too many verses where God doesn't predestine our election based on our choices or actions.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> If God looks ahead and chooses individuals who have chosen him, I wonder why Arminianism denominations use missionaries? I never though about how weird Christian free will is until really thinking about it.
> I can understand free will from an Atheist prospective but from a Christian prospective, it doesn't make any sense.
> At least from the Arminianism prospective of God basing his election on his omniscience of our future actions. I wonder if there are any non-Arminian free will denominations?
> 
> Even if I stick with a free will belief, I won't believe as the Arminians that God looked ahead at my actions or choice. There are just too many verses where God doesn't predestine our election based on our choices or actions.


To be honest when it comes to the whole Elect thing I don't understand why organized religion of any sort would be necessary.


----------



## Israel

It depends upon who is doing the organizing.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> To be honest when it comes to the whole Elect thing I don't understand why organized religion of any sort would be necessary.


It isn't.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> To be honest when it comes to the whole Elect thing I don't understand why organized religion of any sort would be necessary.



I would say to get together to learn the proper way to live and worship. But then again how can one learn without a choice. If predestined to not learn? If predestined not to congregate as the village islander would be? The elected village islander that is.

Maybe God does gives us the ability to think we have free will and choices in the form of predetermined choices as Gem mentioned.

Election removes the need  to send missionaries. I would assume it removes the need to have organized religion as for as salvation is concerned.

Maybe there is more to religion than salvation!

Maybe there is more to religion than a social event!


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> To be honest when it comes to the whole Elect thing I don't understand why organized religion of any sort would be necessary.



Because Jesus said "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I also in the midst of them".


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Because Jesus said "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I also in the midst of them".


I always heard God/Jesus was everywhere 
Sounds like a two Elect minimum.


----------



## Israel

Groucho Marx once said "I would not belong to any club that would have me as a member".
To meet with the approval of men for inclusion means one of two things:
I have lied sufficiently well to satisfy their gullibility.
Their standards are so low as to make their "forming" of the club, the lie.

But, it seems we do that, regardless. I am a this or that (and certainly _not_ a this or that)..what are you? What label shall we take to "distinguish ourselves"?

It's a bit different when the lions are hungry.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Groucho Marx once said "I would not belong to any club that would have me as a member".
> To meet with the approval of men for inclusion means one of two things:
> I have lied sufficiently well to satisfy their gullibility.
> Their standards are so low as to make their "forming" of the club, the lie.
> 
> But, it seems we do that, regardless. I am a this or that (and certainly _not_ a this or that)..what are you? What label shall we take to "distinguish ourselves"?
> 
> It's a bit different when the lions are hungry.


I know I would be using my own discernment or maybe lack there of, but I have a hard time using this -


> Originally Posted by welderguy View Post
> Because Jesus said "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I also in the midst of them".


to justify the mega corporation that organized religion is. Theme parks, limousines, bumper stickers, time shares, air waves, I'm right and you're wrong, miracles performed every Sunday on tv for your viewing pleasure.......
Apparently I wasn't given the "gift" to understand it all.


----------



## welderguy

I think the key words are: "in my name"
Jesus can see right into our heart and He knows who is truly worshipping in His name.
He was not pleased with those that were using the temple for their own gain.He made a whip and ran them out.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> I know I would be using my own discernment or maybe lack there of, but I have a hard time using this -
> 
> to justify the mega corporation that organized religion is. Theme parks, limousines, bumper stickers, time shares, air waves, I'm right and you're wrong, miracles performed every Sunday on tv for your viewing pleasure.......
> Apparently I wasn't given the "gift" to understand it all.



I am not sure either.
But I am not sure that is what was intended, though.
If the stuff you mention is all you can see when the name Jesus comes up (and I am not saying it is) I have little problem understanding why one could be a little "off" put.
And if you see that any who name that name, are therefore endorsing any and all things that name can be slapped on, painted over, attached to...well I kinda get that too...except that it speaks more to me of a common need of a savior than anything else. So, in one sense I see the name as the cure for all that would take that name to endorse their own agendas...cause if men can't be forgiven self interest...what am I gonna do...what's then my end?
Sometimes I believe the hope is in measure of being made able to bear the contradictions...
I kinda get the same sense when I consider "tournament fishing"...for $$$$. Is there not one thing we are not willing to take and turn into what seems an endeavor for dollar profit, and place ourselves then...under the gun?
But again, my only hope of not being under the gun is in the hope that things are _at least _a little different than we make, and have made, them. For that, I must look away to something unseen.
Yes, my hope is where neon has a truer meaning than its use in blaring signs...and gold is used as paving material.
I'd be a liar if I didn't tell you I often look up to gold in this temple, caught unknowing by its sheer brilliance till I am reproved, rather than down upon it; but I'd also be a liar to not say I don't see its being shaken, fiercely.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> I am not sure either.
> But I am not sure that is what was intended, though.
> If the stuff you mention is all you can see when the name Jesus comes up (and I am not saying it is) I have little problem understanding why one could be a little "off" put.
> And if you see that any who name that name, are therefore endorsing any and all things that name can be slapped on, painted over, attached to...well I kinda get that too...except that it speaks more to me of a common need of a savior than anything else. So, in one sense I see the name as the cure for all that would take that name to endorse their own agendas...cause if men can't be forgiven self interest...what am I gonna do...what's then my end?
> Sometimes I believe the hope is in measure of being made able to bear the contradictions...
> I kinda get the same sense when I consider "tournament fishing"...for $$$$. Is there not one thing we are not willing to take and turn into what seems an endeavor for dollar profit, and place ourselves then...under the gun?
> But again, my only hope of not being under the gun is in the hope that things are _at least _a little different than we make, and have made, them. For that, I must look away to something unseen.
> Yes, my hope is where neon has a truer meaning than its use in blaring signs...and gold is used as paving material.





> If the stuff you mention is all you can see when the name Jesus comes up


Organized religion is the furthest thing away from what I understand Jesus stood for.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I think the key words are: "in my name"
> Jesus can see right into our heart and He knows who is truly worshipping in His name.
> He was not pleased with those that were using the temple for their own gain.He made a whip and ran them out.


You quoted scripture to justify the existence of organized religion.
Are you sure organized religion is what Jesus meant by "gather in my name" ?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You quoted scripture to justify the existence of organized religion.
> Are you sure organized religion is what Jesus meant by "gather in my name" ?



I tried to illustrate that there is a distinction between true worship and false.
Both can fall under the category of organized religion.But, one is""organized" by God and the other is "organized" by man.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I tried to illustrate that there is a distinction between true worship and false.
> Both can fall under the category of organized religion.But, one is""organized" by God and the other is "organized" by man.


I understand that. However that's not what we are discussing. Again, you used this -


> Because Jesus said "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I also in the midst of them".


Your assumption is that this scripture justifies organized religion.
Why?
Two or three cant gather in Jesus's name without the existence of organized religion?


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> I know I would be using my own discernment or maybe lack there of, but I have a hard time using this -
> 
> to justify the mega corporation that organized religion is. Theme parks, limousines, bumper stickers, time shares, air waves, I'm right and you're wrong, miracles performed every Sunday on tv for your viewing pleasure.......
> Apparently I wasn't given the "gift" to understand it all.


Religion is organized in its hatred of God.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Religion is organized in its hatred of God.


I'm not sure I personally would word it that way but I certainly agree organized religion has chased lots of folks away from the idea of God.
Whether that's a result of hatred or pride or arrogance or....... I don't know. Maybe all of them.


----------



## welderguy

Luke 18:10 tells the parable of two men that went to the temple to pray.One was a pharisee, one was a publican.The pharisee prayed, justifying himself, the publican prayed asking God for mercy.Jesus said the publican went to his house justified.

There's a difference between those who have been made able by faith to truly worship and those who haven't been given faith.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Organized religion is the furthest thing away from what I understand Jesus stood for.



Thinking about it, there are quite a few non-religious people that I know or know of that are more Jesus-like without trying or without  purposefully making an effort than the vast majority of die hard religious Jesus wanna-bees that point fingers at others and are The perfect examples of the Do As I Say..Not As I Do crowd.
Some people lead by example 24/7 and others put on the act when needed but especially on Sundays where the competition is toughest in the pews.


----------



## Israel

WaltL1 said:


> Organized religion is the furthest thing away from what I understand Jesus stood for.


Jesus stood for a lot. In that he endured a lot. A lot of what wasn't right...to be made right.
I just can't seem to get away from "the way" he made it right. Yes, he spoke against it, yes he made whips of cords, yes he exposed the hypocrisy of men who "used" what is a position of service for an indulgence of their own aggrandizement. But I know of no one but myself...who even claiming to see the way...balks more consistently at the cross (or stauroo, torture stake) than any other I know.
I like exposing hypocrisy! I love "feeling above". I am the guy you mentioned "I'm right, and you are wrong"...down to my soles...yet...all these things speak to my shame.
How do I escape all these things of shame to which my own heart is so inclined? Every time I would enjoy reproving hypocrisy...my own is exposed. Every time I could commend men be free of self interest...my own is exposed.

Death is the only remedy. And I see a death provided. To be free of that "thing". But it looks so shameful...that death...it looks so unright...shouldn't the one who "has it alright"...be well...lauded...not crucified?

How can this be? Messiah...purposed to death? The one we all say we are waiting for (even the _"unbeliever"_ has an _ideal_ man in mind...does he not?)...why does my ideal man always have to die? To be put to shame?

Because he is _my ideal_. The best I can imagine, the best I can muster, the best I can hope to ever be...of myself...is always, inevitably...to my own shame.

You will say of me..."then doesn't your "ideal" Jesus fit the same description"? Yes!!! Precisely!!!

How much bigger is the infinite...than all I can apprehend? What is "in there"...that I do not yet see?


Look, a brother once wrote "Now are we sons of God...but we still don't know all we'll be...cause we don't see him perfectly clearly...yet" But the hope in the little I have seen...has led me a way I could never have chosen, though I thought I had...that the little known is always having to be "put to death"...so that the greater may be seen. Yesterday I comforted myself "I am not like the atheists...I am a believer in Goddddd". But then something had to die that was such a comfort, such a warmth..."to be around". NOOOO! Don't go..._thing_ that gives me warmth. You're alright "with me". Please...far be it from you...if you go...how will I then know I am not just like "them"? You make me feel "special". I don't want to feel less than special.

Oh, the folly!

You may ask...why Jesus? Cause he is the perfection of logic, the perfection of what is given to something that thinks it knows...to perfectly undo it. Of course I look a fool, sound a fool, act a fool, a fool is all I am...and have ever been. But...the perfection has taken the sting of it, taken all the death of it, consumed all the shame of it. What do I know? Nothing except I do not know.
How then can I possibly know this? Jesus.
How can it be alright to be all wrong? Jesus.

Of course I don't know as I ought. Yes, I am precisely as one said "pitiable" in every measure...among men...as a worm. What do I have to add to any? Nothing.
Yet...even a worm...is.
How can a worm even know it is?
Jesus.
Because he is, I am.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Luke 18:10 tells the parable of two men that went to the temple to pray.One was a pharisee, one was a publican.The pharisee prayed, justifying himself, the publican prayed asking God for mercy.Jesus said the publican went to his house justified.
> 
> There's a difference between those who have been made able by faith to truly worship and those who haven't been given faith.


The subject is organized religion and its necessity/justification based on the scripture you quoted. Not who has faith and who doesn't.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Thinking about it, there are quite a few non-religious people that I know or know of that are more Jesus-like without trying or without  purposefully making an effort than the vast majority of die hard religious Jesus wanna-bees that point fingers at others and are The perfect examples of the Do As I Say..Not As I Do crowd.
> Some people lead by example 24/7 and others put on the act when needed but especially on Sundays where the competition is toughest in the pews.


Yes.
Now remove organized religion from the mix. Without it telling people we got it right they got it wrong, this is how you are supposed to act and dress and walk and talk, folks might be more concerned with Jesus than what everybody else is or isn't doing.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Jesus stood for a lot. In that he endured a lot. A lot of what wasn't right...to be made right.
> I just can't seem to get away from "the way" he made it right. Yes, he spoke against it, yes he made whips of cords, yes he exposed the hypocrisy of men who "used" what is a position of service for an indulgence of their own aggrandizement. But I know of no one but myself...who even claiming to see the way...balks more consistently at the cross (or stauroo, torture stake) than any other I know.
> I like exposing hypocrisy! I love "feeling above". I am the guy you mentioned "I'm right, and you are wrong"...down to my soles...yet...all these things speak to my shame.
> How do I escape all these things of shame to which my own heart is so inclined? Every time I would enjoy reproving hypocrisy...my own is exposed. Every time I could commend men be free of self interest...my own is exposed.
> 
> Death is the only remedy. And I see a death provided. To be free of that "thing". But it looks so shameful...that death...it looks so unright...shouldn't the one who "has it alright"...be well...lauded...not crucified?
> 
> How can this be? Messiah...purposed to death? The one we all say we are waiting for (even the _"unbeliever"_ has an _ideal_ man in mind...does he not?)...why does my ideal man always have to die? To be put to shame?
> 
> Because he is _my ideal_. The best I can imagine, the best I can muster, the best I can hope to ever be...of myself...is always, inevitably...to my own shame.
> 
> You will say of me..."then doesn't your "ideal" Jesus fit the same description"? Yes!!! Precisely!!!
> 
> How much bigger is the infinite...than all I can apprehend? What is "in there"...that I do not yet see?
> 
> 
> Look, a brother once wrote "Now are we sons of God...but we still don't know all we'll be...cause we don't see him perfectly clearly...yet" But the hope in the little I have seen...has led me a way I could never have chosen, though I thought I had...that the little known is always having to be "put to death"...so that the greater may be seen. Yesterday I comforted myself "I am not like the atheists...I am a believer in Goddddd". But then something had to die that was such a comfort, such a warmth..."to be around". NOOOO! Don't go..._thing_ that gives me warmth. You're alright "with me". Please...far be it from you...if you go...how will I then know I am not just like "them"? You make me feel "special". I don't want to feel less than special.
> 
> Oh, the folly!
> 
> You may ask...why Jesus? Cause he is the perfection of logic, the perfection of what is given to something that thinks it knows...to perfectly undo it. Of course I look a fool, sound a fool, act a fool, a fool is all I am...and have ever been. But...the perfection has taken the sting of it, taken all the death of it, consumed all the shame of it. What do I know? Nothing except I do not know.
> How then can I possibly know this? Jesus.
> How can it be alright to be all wrong? Jesus.
> 
> Of course I don't know as I ought. Yes, I am precisely as one said "pitiable" in every measure...among men...as a worm. What do I have to add to any? Nothing.
> Yet...even a worm...is.
> How can a worm even know it is?
> Jesus.
> Because he is, I am.



Oh the folly.
Always the show.

"Why" we may ask?
We didn't!


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Yes.
> Now remove organized religion from the mix. Without it telling people we got it right they got it wrong, this is how you are supposed to act and dress and walk and talk, folks might be more concerned with Jesus than what everybody else is or isn't doing.


I agree Walt


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Oh the folly.
> Always the show.
> 
> "Why" we may ask?
> We didn't!



you nailed it buddy.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> I agree Walt


And its that same organized religion that says -


> there are quite a few non-religious people that I know or know of that are more Jesus-like without trying or without purposefully making an effort than the vast majority of die hard religious Jesus wanna-bees


"they are bad and we are good".
The folly of it all.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Thinking about it, there are quite a few non-religious people that I know or know of that are more Jesus-like without trying or without  purposefully making an effort than the vast majority of die hard religious Jesus wanna-bees that point fingers at others and are The perfect examples of the Do As I Say..Not As I Do crowd.
> Some people lead by example 24/7 and others put on the act when needed but especially on Sundays where the competition is toughest in the pews.



Amen.I have known people like that also.
Good post Bullethead.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bullethead said:


> Thinking about it, there are quite a few non-religious people that I know or know of that are more Jesus-like without trying or without  purposefully making an effort than the vast majority of die hard religious Jesus wanna-bees that point fingers at others and are The perfect examples of the Do As I Say..Not As I Do crowd.
> Some people lead by example 24/7 and others put on the act when needed but especially on Sundays where the competition is toughest in the pews.



There are plenty of men even in Church that are doing things only to please men. They are doing things for show. To show other men how religious they are.
Like Welderguy said only Jesus can know what's really in their heart.

I do believe organized religion oversteps it place when it gets political. Telling it's members who to vote for like it's a union hall. 
Another example is like from a forum above, preachers telling it's members to pray for our nation's leaders to make God's "end times" prophesy come true. I would feel more comfortable letting God do that.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> There are plenty of men even in Church that are doing things only to please men. They are doing things for show. To show other men how religious they are.
> Like Welderguy said only Jesus can know what's really in their heart.
> 
> I do believe organized religion oversteps it place when it gets political. Telling it's members who to vote for like it's a union hall.
> Another example is like from a forum above, preachers telling it's members to pray for our nation's leaders to make God's "end times" prophesy come true. I would feel more comfortable letting God do that.


If there was no organized religion, just God and you, what would be different regarding your salvation?


----------



## GA native

Just because God knows your fate, does not mean he influenced it in any way.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> If there was no organized religion, just God and you, what would be different regarding your salvation?



Nothing whatsoever. God isn't limited to electing only individuals indoctrinated into organized religion. 
He mostly elects people that aren't religious at all, lost sinners. He can elect people from all over the world. People on small islands and remote villages.


----------



## Artfuldodger

GA native said:


> Just because God knows your fate, does not mean he influenced it in any way.



That is true but it does mean you can't change your fate because God has already seen your future. If you changed now it would make God change.

God doesn't base salvation on anything we do so God wouldn't look into your future and choose you because you chose him.


----------



## WaltL1

GA native said:


> Just because God knows your fate, does not mean he influenced it in any way.


We've been discussing that. There are differing opinions/beliefs.
Jump in with why or not you believe that.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> That is true but it does mean you can't change your fate because God has already seen your future. If you changed now it would make God change.
> 
> God doesn't base salvation on anything we do so God wouldn't look into your future and choose you because you chose him.


So that would mean organized religion is not a REQUIREMENT for salvation. According to predestination the choice has already been made whether organized religion exists or not.
So what purpose does it serve?
And if you say to worship God, Im going to ask "cant you worship God without organized religion"?


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> So that would mean organized religion is not a REQUIREMENT for salvation. According to predestination the choice has already been made whether organized religion exists or not.
> So what purpose does it serve?
> And if you say to worship God, Im going to ask "cant you worship God without organized religion"?



It should be a place for people to go to where lost people can see what Christians look like. That way they'll see the boastful, fornicators, cheaters, and slanderers and wonder what the difference is. 
Then we can tell them it's all about that grace. Well that would be a good purpose in a free will Church.

Maybe in a Elect Church to _______. I haven't a clue. God gives the knowledge as needed. He controls how someone lives and acts. He makes one love and help others.
I guess just to see kinfolks and eat Southern food.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> So... religion.....
> what purpose does it serve?/QUOTE]
> 
> For the glory of God,who is the great I AM,the immutable creator and the savior of sinners.


----------



## Israel

Jesus says precisely what "will" be because he lives where what is.
He didn't walk the world with a crystal ball, he didn't surmise, he didn't strain his brain to see  "into the future" the results of what would come to deny his resurrection, his mastery, and his victory over the world. The speaker of "let there be light"...and it is, spoke/speaks fully through him.
Jesus ordains...it cannot but be so.
One believes him or not, and takes their place in that.
All things to their appointed end as to us foretold, but to him, as they are.
The _many_ that must come in his name proclaiming their possession of the Holy Spirit can no more resist than the electrons that orbit the nucleus. It is the allowance of God for what seems that is willed to make way for what is. Resist or surrender, we can do nothing against the truth, but for it. Grace is to be found.
Men may think they can resist the Lord...when it is only they, themselves, they oppose.
One says 





> The person of Jesus, if indeed there was such a person...


Also claims 





> Thinking about it, there are quite a few non-religious people that I know or know of that are more Jesus-like without trying or without purposefully making an effort than the vast majority of die hard religious Jesus wanna-bees that point fingers at others and are The perfect examples of the Do As I Say..Not As I Do crowd.



Always a show.
Of this.


> A good starting place might be a little more recognition that we don’t know nearly as much as we’d like to think...



That's always a safe place brother, maybe not even to start, but to stay? Isn't it?

And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?"

How long does He wait for us to answer his "why"?
Maybe after our "best guess" he will tell us?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Jesus says precisely what "will" be because he lives where what is.
> He didn't walk the world with a crystal ball, he didn't surmise, he didn't strain his brain to see  "into the future" the results of what would come to deny his resurrection, his mastery, and his victory over the world. The speaker of "let there be light"...and it is, spoke/speaks fully through him.
> Jesus ordains...it cannot but be so.
> One believes him or not, and takes their place in that.
> All things to their appointed end as to us foretold, but to him, as they are.
> The _many_ that must come in his name proclaiming their possession of the Holy Spirit can no more resist than the electrons that orbit the nucleus. It is the allowance of God for what seems that is willed to make way for what is. Resist or surrender, we can do nothing against the truth, but for it. Grace is to be found.
> Men may think they can resist the Lord...when it is only they, themselves, they oppose.
> One says
> Also claims
> 
> Always a show.
> Of this.
> 
> 
> That's always a safe place brother, maybe not even to start, but to stay? Isn't it?
> 
> And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?"
> 
> How long does He wait for us to answer his "why"?
> Maybe after our "best guess" he will tell us?



You would do better to check what is actually mine and what I took from an article that I also listed the link to.

If you want to quote me, quote directly.

Jesus,whether real and the bible is spot on accurate, real but embellished in the bible, or never existed and is totally made up...whatever...can be a person that others can be compared to as known in the stories.
Don't take it as me confirming or denying anything other than exactly as I meant it. It is not a place to start as it is old news. He is no more or no less than any other literary figure or Hollywood character that people can be compared to.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... religion.....
> what purpose does it serve?/QUOTE]
> 
> For the glory of God,who is the great I AM,the immutable creator and the savior of sinners.
> 
> 
> 
> And if there was no organized religion you wouldn't be able to glorify him?
> Back to your quote -
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by welderguy View Post
> Because Jesus said "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I also in the midst of them".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You read that to say "create 32,000 different denominations of Christians, disagree with each other, chase people away from me, touch people on the head making them fall down Sunday mornings on tv....?
> You are PB Welder, you believe in taking the Bible for EXACTLY what it says and nothing else.
> That's what it says? That's glorifying him?
> 
> 
> 
> and the savior of sinners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean creator of sinners. They were predestined to be that. Or not.
Click to expand...


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if there was no organized religion you wouldn't be able to glorify him?
> Back to your quote -
> 
> You read that to say "create 32,000 different denominations of Christians, disagree with each other, chase people away from me, touch people on the head making them fall down Sunday mornings on tv....?
> You are PB Welder, you believe in taking the Bible for EXACTLY what it says and nothing else.
> That's what it says? That's glorifying him?
> 
> You mean creator of sinners. They were predestined to be that. Or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinners according to plan. Some in the plan to be saved and the rest in the plan not to be saved.
> That makes for a lot of unnecessary  show and grandstanding in order to get to what was going to happen anyway.
> It leads right to "sacrificing" a Son that goes to human Son of God to God. He got promoted.
> Not much of a sacrifice.
Click to expand...


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> And if there was no organized religion you wouldn't be able to glorify him?



That's a very moot question because there will never be a time when there will not be religion.I know this because of the promise given by Jesus in Matt.16:18"And I say also unto thee,thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of he11 shall not prevail against it."


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> That's a very moot question because there will never be a time when there will not be religion.I know this because of the promise given by Jesus in Matt.16:18"And I say also unto thee,thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of he11 shall not prevail against it."


Religion and Organized Religion are different.

You are perfect for one of them.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> That's a very moot question because there will never be a time when there will not be religion.I know this because of the promise given by Jesus in Matt.16:18"And I say also unto thee,thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of he11 shall not prevail against it."


Ok you don't want to answer the question. I wont press it. I'll try a different question -


> upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of he11 shall not prevail against it."


You read that as a commandment to do this ? -


> According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches


You believe Jesus was talking about building a literal church meaning a building?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Religion and Organized Religion are different.



I agree.This is what I've been trying to say today.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Religion and Organized Religion are different.
> 
> You are perfect for one of them.


And Ive been careful to use "organized religion" in my questions/statements but every answer I get is related to "religion".


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> You believe Jesus was talking about building a literal church meaning a building?



No.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I agree.This is what I've been trying to say today.



Walt has made it very clear to separate them and focus on Organized Religion and you keep using religion in your answers.
Why?


----------



## bullethead

Does Jesus ask/want/command to be worshiped anywhere in the Bible?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Walt has made it very clear to separate them and focus on Organized Religion and you keep using religion in your answers.
> Why?



Because every time I tried making the distinction, he would group it all together under "organized".


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Does Jesus ask/want/command to be worshiped anywhere in the Bible?



He always pointed to the Father as the object of worship.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Because every time I tried making the distinction, he would group it all together under "organized".


*I* made the distinction in my very post on this particular subject -


> To be honest when it comes to the whole Elect thing I don't understand why organized religion of any sort would be necessary.


You responded using scripture.
I questioned if the scripture you used justified organized religion.
So you used more scripture. And I questioned again whether it justified organized religion.
And here we are.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> No.


How about this part -


> You read that as a commandment to do this ? -
> 
> Quote:
> According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> You would do better to check what is actually mine and what I took from an article that I also listed the link to.
> 
> If you want to quote me, quote directly.
> 
> Jesus,whether real and the bible is spot on accurate, real but embellished in the bible, or never existed and is totally made up...whatever...can be a person that others can be compared to as known in the stories.
> Don't take it as me confirming or denying anything other than exactly as I meant it. It is not a place to start as it is old news. He is no more or no less than any other literary figure or Hollywood character that people can be compared to.


Is that then your testimony of Jesus Christ?


Do you remember the song by Eagles, Victim of Love?


There's a verse that goes: 

I could be wrong, but I'm not...

Am I wrong in seeing that take place between the red and purple?
I could be wrong...

but I'm not?
Am I wrong then, whether by proxy...or _your own words_, you are doing the selfsame thing?


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> So that would mean organized religion is not a REQUIREMENT for salvation.



Where will the tithing go?  Who will collect money for God?


----------



## WaltL1

660griz said:


> Where will the tithing go?  Who will collect money for God?


Organized religion has a pretty good racket going don't it.
The Vatican alone could feed, clothe and shelter every homeless family and elderly folks indefinitely.
I guess they don't want to dip into God's retirement fund though.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> You read that as a commandment to do this ? -





> According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches


Walt, are you trying to show how Christianity cannot be viewed as Organized Religion?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Is that then your testimony of Jesus Christ?
> 
> 
> Do you remember the song by Eagles, Victim of Love?
> 
> 
> There's a verse that goes:
> 
> I could be wrong, but I'm not...
> 
> Am I wrong in seeing that take place between the red and purple?
> I could be wrong...
> 
> but I'm not?
> Am I wrong then, whether by proxy...or _your own words_, you are doing the selfsame thing?



I have stated my thoughts on Jesus 90 times over.
In regards to Eagles song:
Words that mean individual things to individual people. Written by men who are worshiped yet are not divine. The people those words touch think the words were written specifically for them and use them as some sort of proof?...proof of nothing.
That song is just like your scripture. 

We can fill 2000 posts with words from songs that counter words from other songs and none of it means a darn thing....yet millions take them to heart and let the words affect them in every aspect that scripture does.


----------



## 660griz

"I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners have much more fun..."


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Walt, are you trying to show how Christianity cannot be viewed as Organized Religion?


Definitely not. Christianity IS organized religion.
I started out by saying, based on the belief in Election, I don't see why organized religion is necessary.
It then moved to the quoting of different scripture justifying the existence of organized religion. None of which did that.
Then it was posited that organized religion exists to glorify God. I then pointed the many UN-glorifying things found in organized religion and why couldn't one glorify God without the existence of organized religion. So I have two agendas =
1. If one is predestined or of the Elect, what difference does it make if organized religion exists or not. And if it makes no difference why does it exist?
2. I believe organized religion is entirely a product of man to suit mans own interest.
Im looking for something to show that isn't true such as God/Jesus said to create it as it exists today.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> I started out by saying, based on the belief in Election, I don't see why organized religion is necessary.



It is only necessary in the same way AA, Amway meetings, or any other gathering of like minded individuals is necessary. Folks like to be around others in the same boat to prop up their feelings. Human nature. 
When that happens, some entrepreneurial folks will see an opportunity. Control. 
"Hey brother Ralph. Haven't seen you in church for awhile."


----------



## welderguy

Sounds like you guys have a disdain for church.I think you can only see the bad and not any of the good.All churches are made up of sinners so theres always going to be sin.There is no perfect church.The church I attend is not perfect either but I go there because, though I'm a sinner, the people love me anyway.I hear the gospel of my Lord preached every Sunday and most times than not I am moved by the Holy Spirit.As far as giving money, it's not required but most do it out of love.I get a blessing to my weary soul almost every time I go and am encouraged to press on in life.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Sounds like you guys have a disdain for church.I think you can only see the bad and not any of the good.All churches are made up of sinners so theres always going to be sin.There is no perfect church.The church I attend is not perfect either but I go there because, though I'm a sinner, the people love me anyway.I hear the gospel of my Lord preached every Sunday and most times than not I am moved by the Holy Spirit.As far as giving money, it's not required but most do it out of love.I get a blessing to my weary soul almost every time I go and am encouraged to press on in life.



You did not answer one single thing that Walt has been asking you.
We know all about church. We have all been involved and attended and worshiped and been a part of church.

If a person is one of the Elect, is church necessary?
Is a denomination necessary?
With over 7 billion people on Earth do you even have to be Christian to be elected by God?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I have stated my thoughts on Jesus 90 times over.
> In regards to Eagles song:
> Words that mean individual things to individual people. Written by men who are worshiped yet are not divine. The people those words touch think the words were written specifically for them and use them as some sort of proof?...proof of nothing.
> That song is just like your scripture.
> 
> We can fill 2000 posts with words from songs that counter words from other songs and none of it means a darn thing....yet millions take them to heart and let the words affect them in every aspect that scripture does.



I see a progression from "Jesus could be who it says" (and then some mixture of permutations)

To the assertion "he's no more or less than a literary figure or Hollywood character".

The first concedes a not knowing...but the second defines him. A "character"

That was all meant in "I could be wrong...but I'm not".


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You did not answer one single thing that Walt has been asking you.
> We know all about church. We have all been involved and attended and worshiped and been a part of church.
> 
> If a person is one of the Elect, is church necessary?
> Is a denomination necessary?
> With over 7 billion people on Earth do you even have to be Christian to be elected by God?



The reason I can't answer those questions is because I can only answer for myself personally.I can't make a blanket judgement for the other 7billion people.The answer for myself is no, going to church is not necessary for my salvation.However, when Jesus changed my heart, He gave me a great desire to go to church, even knowing that it wasn't perfect. He gave me a hunger to learn about Him and find out what had happened inside my heart.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I see a progression from "Jesus could be who it says" (and then some mixture of permutations)
> 
> To the assertion "he's no more or less than a literary figure or Hollywood character".
> 
> The first concedes a not knowing...but the second defines him. A "character"
> 
> That was all meant in "I could be wrong...but I'm not".



Yeah I do not know who or what "Jesus" actually is.
All I can reference is the stories in the Bible and the versions we read have the guys name wrong...geography wrong, science wrong, procedures wrong, events wrong, inconsistencies , inaccuracies, contradictions and errors.
Forgive me for not knowing Yeshua.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The reason I can't answer those questions is because I can only answer for myself personally.I can't make a blanket judgement for the other 7billion people.The answer for myself is no, going to church is not necessary for my salvation.However, when Jesus changed my heart, He gave me a great desire to go to church, even knowing that it wasn't perfect. He gave me a hunger to learn about Him and find out what had happened inside my heart.


Here's how you handle that. Start your sentence with -
I believe...............


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Here's how you handle that. Start your sentence with -
> I believe...............



I believe that going to church is not a necessity to salvation.It's a bonus.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> I see a progression from "Jesus could be who it says" (and then some mixture of permutations)
> 
> To the assertion "he's no more or less than a literary figure or Hollywood character".
> 
> The first concedes a not knowing...but the second defines him. A "character"
> 
> That was all meant in "I could be wrong...but I'm not".


You also have to consider that Biblical scholars don't even agree whether Jesus existed or not or if he did what is true and what is not about him.
You have the advantage of a blanket "I believe it all".
We approach it a little differently.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I believe that going to church is not a necessity to salvation.It's a bonus.



Do you believe that you have seen selected to be one of the elect?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Do you believe that you have seen selected to be one of the elect?



Yes


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I believe that going to church is not a necessity to salvation.It's a bonus.


See how easy that was 
But the tougher question is do YOU believe organized religion is mandated by the Bible to exist?
Or is it something man created because of the bonus or the good feelings one gets from being involved in it?


> He gave me a great desire to go to church, even knowing that it wasn't perfect.


And when I speak of organized religion Im not talking about an individual church, Im talking about organized religion in its entirety. LOTS of negative things happen because it exists. Not ONLY negative things, but lots of negative things. And those negative things are far from glorifying God I would think.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> You also have to consider that Biblical scholars don't even agree whether Jesus existed or not or if he did what is true and what is not about him.
> You have the advantage of a blanket "I believe it all".
> We approach it a little differently.



Believers have a way of not considering anything other than what it takes for them to believe AND use those individual feelings as fact. While I agree their belief is fact for them, the unprovable claims that then go along with it makes it hard to converse when they are shown things that counter and negate and continue to carry on as if they have never been shown.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Yes



Do you have any other information, other than a flat out guess, as to know if Walt or I or anyone else that contributes in here are also part of the elect?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> See how easy that was
> But the tougher question is do YOU believe organized religion is mandated by the Bible to exist?
> Or is it something man created because of the bonus or the good feelings one gets from being involved in it?
> 
> And when I speak of organized religion Im not talking about an individual church, Im talking about organized religion in its entirety. LOTS of negative things happen because it exists. Not ONLY negative things, but lots of negative things. And those negative things are far from glorifying God I would think.



When you put it all under the category of "organized" religion and then ask me if it's all of God, I have to say emphatically no.The church that God established on the day of Pentecost is still in existence, but, there were many churches that were set up by false prophets.These are in existence today and are rapidly expanding.And I believe are causing more harm than good, even though they are operating under "good" pretences.I can't judge hearts but I must discern the fruits that I see whether it's good or evil.We all have that responsibility.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Do you have any other information, other than a flat out guess, as to know if Walt or I or anyone else that contributes in here are also part of the elect?



Here's what I think.just my thoughts and my hopes.Although you, and others, often say things very contrary to, and even sometimes very irreverent to God, the fact that you guys keep seeking makes me wonder.If the only reason for the questions is to mock and try to cause strife, then I'd guess you are totally reprobate.
BUT, if you are truly seeking the truth of God and are sincere, then I think God may be drawing you.
Now, the last thing I want to do is give a false hope.So, to get the true answers , you need to pray to God that He will reveal it to you by His Spirit.He said "he that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out"


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> See how easy that was
> But the tougher question is do YOU believe organized religion is mandated by the Bible to exist?
> 
> ... And when I speak of organized religion Im not talking about an individual church, Im talking about organized religion in its entirety.



Can you be more specific?  What is "organized religion in its entirety"?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> When you put it all under the category of "organized" religion and then ask me if it's all of God, I have to say emphatically no.The church that God established on the day of Pentecost is still in existence, but, there were many churches that were set up by false prophets.These are in existence today and are rapidly expanding.And I believe are causing more harm than good, even though they are operating under "good" pretences.I can't judge hearts but I must discern the fruits that I see whether it's good or evil.We all have that responsibility.





> When you put it all under the category of "organized" religion


I don't put it ALL under organized religion.
Belief in God is religion. You believe therefore are religious.
Organized religion is the denominations, churches, rules, regulations etc etc.
You can be religious and have religion and never step foot in a church.
If you do, you have now entered the realm of organized religion.
Think about the word organized. Christianity is organized into denominations - Catholic, Baptist, PB etc each with varying beliefs and different churches and ways of worship etc.
That's where all the who's right and who's wrong, they aren't real believers but we are, and only this Bible is the right one and Im speaking for God to you and all that stuff comes from.
Get rid of all that organization and you are left with
God and people. That's it.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> Here's what I think.just my thoughts and my hopes.Although you, and others, often say things very contrary to, and even sometimes very irreverent to God, the fact that you guys keep seeking makes me wonder.If the only reason for the questions is to mock and try to cause strife, then I'd guess you are totally reprobate.
> BUT, if you are truly seeking the truth of God and are sincere, then I think God may be drawing you.
> Now, the last thing I want to do is give a false hope.So, to get the true answers , you need to pray to God that He will reveal it to you by His Spirit.He said "he that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out"



Now now now...don't  contradict yourself by quoting  "he that hath cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out"
That goes directly against the Elect already being chosen. 
Which is right? Everyone that cometh? Or already chosen?

And since you didn't answer the first question I will ask it again. 
Do you have any other information, other than a flat out guess, as to know if Walt or I or anyone else that contributes in here are also part of the elect?


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> Can you be more specific?  What is "organized religion in its entirety"?


See above


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Here's what I think.just my thoughts and my hopes.Although you, and others, often say things very contrary to, and even sometimes very irreverent to God, the fact that you guys keep seeking makes me wonder.If the only reason for the questions is to mock and try to cause strife, then I'd guess you are totally reprobate.
> BUT, if you are truly seeking the truth of God and are sincere, then I think God may be drawing you.
> Now, the last thing I want to do is give a false hope.So, to get the true answers , you need to pray to God that He will reveal it to you by His Spirit.He said "he that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out"


Again if one doesn't believe a God exists or doesn't believe there is enough evidence to believe God exists, then one isn't mocking God.
And tough questions aren't mocking.
If we say God is cruel or crazy or whatever what we are talking about is how some of the stories we are told depict him.
If I told you the Flying Spaghetti Monster wiped out the population of the earth because he didn't like their behavior and you called The Flying Spaghetti Monster a murderer why would that be mocking? or irreverent?
Its what the Flying Spaghetti Monster did in the story I told you.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Here's what I think.just my thoughts and my hopes.Although you, and others, often say things very contrary to, and even sometimes very irreverent to God, the fact that you guys keep seeking makes me wonder.If the only reason for the questions is to mock and try to cause strife, then I'd guess you are totally reprobate.
> BUT, if you are truly seeking the truth of God and are sincere, then I think God may be drawing you.
> Now, the last thing I want to do is give a false hope.So, to get the true answers , you need to pray to God that He will reveal it to you by His Spirit.He said "he that cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out"



I have personal thoughts and hopes of "all" who seek will not be cast out but that isn't Primitive Baptist doctrine. 
I think they see lost sinners as being totally depraved and not capable of seeking. They don't believe God elects based on someone seeking. 
My hope is they are wrong. The truth is I don't know.


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> Now now now...don't  contradict yourself by quoting  "he that hath cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out"
> That goes directly against the Elect already being chosen.
> Which is right? Everyone that cometh? Or already chosen?/QUOTE]
> 
> Its not contradictory if you understand effectual calling.If you've been effectually called,you WILL come to Him, and when you do He will not cast you out.
> If you have not been effectually called,you will not come.
> 
> Saul was contrary to God until he was called by God.Then he said "Lord, Lord, what would you have me to do?"


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> And since you didn't answer the first question I will ask it again.
> Do you have any other information, other than a flat out guess, as to know if Walt or I or anyone else that contributes in here are also part of the elect?



I did answer it the best I could without knowing your heart.Only your fruits.


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> bullethead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now now now...don't  contradict yourself by quoting  "he that hath cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out"
> That goes directly against the Elect already being chosen.
> Which is right? Everyone that cometh? Or already chosen?/QUOTE]
> 
> Its not contradictory if you understand effectual calling.If you've been effectually called,you WILL come to Him, and when you do He will not cast you out.
> If you have not been effectually called,you will not come.
> 
> Saul was contrary to God until he was called by God.Then he said "Lord, Lord, what would you have me to do?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see where it is mentioned about one must be Elect or effectually called as part of this verse. "he that hath cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out"
> It sounds like you are adding things in order to fit your needs.
Click to expand...


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not see where it is mentioned about one must be Elect or effectually called as part of this verse. "he that hath cometh to Me, I will in no wise cast out"
> It sounds like you are adding things in order to fit your needs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. But you have to take ALL of scripture collectively to have the whole truth.None of it contradicts itself, I don't care what you say.
> If you can't believe that basic principle, you will always stumble at every concept.
Click to expand...


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> I did answer it the best I could without knowing your heart.Only your fruits.



You don't have to know our hearts.
Is it possible that your God has already chosen one, some, or all of us to be part of the Elect?
Is it possible that not only I am one of his Elect but me typing in here sharing my views is my predetermined purpose for fulfilling his will?


----------



## welderguy

bullethead said:


> You don't have to know our hearts.
> Is it possible that your God has already chosen one, some, or all of us to be part of the Elect?
> Is it possible that not only I am one of his Elect but me typing in here sharing my views is my predetermined purpose for fulfilling his will?



That is very possible.There's not a single person anywhere that cannot be reached and called and changed if God so chose to.Even you bullet.even me.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> I don't put it ALL under organized religion.
> Belief in God is religion. You believe therefore are religious.
> Organized religion is the denominations, churches, rules, regulations etc etc.
> You can be religious and have religion and never step foot in a church.
> If you do, you have now entered the realm of organized religion.
> Think about the word organized. Christianity is organized into denominations - Catholic, Baptist, PB etc each with varying beliefs and different churches and ways of worship etc.
> That's where all the who's right and who's wrong, they aren't real believers but we are, and only this Bible is the right one and Im speaking for God to you and all that stuff comes from.
> Get rid of all that organization and you are left with
> God and people. That's it.




Organization (suggested by a man) from Exodus 18:


_13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.

14 And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?

15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:

16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.

17 And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.

18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.

19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:

20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.

21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:

22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.

23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace._


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> Organization (suggested by a man) from Exodus 18:
> 
> 
> _13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.
> 
> 14 And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?
> 
> 15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
> 
> 16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.
> 
> 17 And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.
> 
> 18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
> 
> 19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
> 
> 20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
> 
> 21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
> 
> 22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.
> 
> 23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace._



NOW the OT is good enuff?


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> NOW the OT is good enuff?




Here's the same principle in Acts 6:1-4:


_And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word._


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> Organization (suggested by a man) from Exodus 18:
> 
> 
> _13 And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening.
> 
> 14 And when Moses' father in law saw all that he did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even?
> 
> 15 And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to enquire of God:
> 
> 16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws.
> 
> 17 And Moses' father in law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good.
> 
> 18 Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that is with thee: for this thing is too heavy for thee; thou art not able to perform it thyself alone.
> 
> 19 Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to God-ward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God:
> 
> 20 And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do.
> 
> 21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:
> 
> 22 And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge: so shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden with thee.
> 
> 23 If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people shall also go to their place in peace._


First thanks for the comment of it being suggested by a man. That does make a difference.
But moreover it proves my point that organized religion is man made. But sure what you posted is heading in the right direction. I'll even overlook the OT part of it.
Then I get stuck on -


> 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.


Now come up with where this was supposed to be a continual process beyond the 7 men.
And that its supposed to be divided up into thousands and thousands of denominations..........
And these denominations are supposed to have different beliefs and ways of worship............
If they knew they were creating a monster I wonder if they would have said "Nah Moses, just work overtime".


----------



## bullethead

centerpin fan said:


> Here's the same principle in Acts 6:1-4:
> 
> 
> _And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
> 
> 2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
> 
> 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
> 
> 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word._



At what point did it become more than people gathering in worship? When did the rules and bylaws come into play? When did it go from Acts 6:1-4 to a level of hierarchy and positions?
4th Century?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Yeah I do not know who or what "Jesus" actually is.
> All I can reference is the stories in the Bible and the versions we read have the guys name wrong...geography wrong, science wrong, procedures wrong, events wrong, inconsistencies , inaccuracies, contradictions and errors.
> Forgive me for not knowing Yeshua.




I am quite certain the gaps in my knowing of him are no less in magnitude than yours. I may be the one more in need of mercy...as I cannot help but perceive I have been the one less consistent in the truth of the life than any other I know.
I am always astounded by grace and how much it covers.
Yochanan's testimony is chock full.
He used to be a "son of thunder"...ya know?


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> First thanks for the comment of it being suggested by a man.



... and approved by God's silence on the matter.  If He had a problem with it, He would have made it known.




WaltL1 said:


> Now come up with where this was supposed to be a continual process beyond the 7 men.



If you're just limited to seven men, you eventually run into the same problem that Moses ran into.  One man (or seven men) can only do so much.




WaltL1 said:


> And that its supposed to be divided up into thousands and thousands of denominations..........



It's not supposed to be divided up into thousands and thousands of denominations.  I will grant you that is purely of man.


----------



## centerpin fan

bullethead said:


> At what point did it become more than people gathering in worship? When did the rules and bylaws come into play? When did it go from Acts 6:1-4 to a level of hierarchy and positions?
> 4th Century?



There were hierarchy and positions in the NT.  Bishops (elders, presbyters, overseers) are mentioned along with deacons.  As the church grew, some bishops began overseeing groups of churches in a particular area.  That practice exists to this day.


----------



## 660griz

centerpin fan said:


> ... and approved by God's silence on the matter.  If He had a problem with it, He would have made it known.



I use to use this concept quite a bit. "God, should I shoot that kid in the be-hind with my bb gun?" Silence. Approval registered.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> I use to use this concept quite a bit. "God, should I shoot that kid in the be-hind with my bb gun?" Silence. Approval registered.



I think the "Good Book" covers that one  "...turn the other cheek".


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by 660griz View Post
> I use to use this concept quite a bit. "God, should I shoot that kid in the be-hind with my bb gun?" Silence. Approval registered.





ambush80 said:


> I think the "Good Book" covers that one  "...turn the other cheek".


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> ... and approved by God's silence on the matter.  If He had a problem with it, He would have made it known.
> 
> If you're just limited to seven men, you eventually run into the same problem that Moses ran into.  One man (or seven men) can only do so much.
> 
> It's not supposed to be divided up into thousands and thousands of denominations.  I will grant you that is purely of man.





> ... and approved by God's silence on the matter.  If He had a problem with it, He would have made it known.


By using God's silence to mean approval you aren't opening a can of worms you are opening an entire worm farm.
Where would I even begin.....


> If you're just limited to seven men, you eventually run into the same problem that Moses ran into.  One man (or seven men) can only do so much.


Or the idea was never intended to fix other than their immediate problem. The creation of all these denominations created the need of more men.


> It's not supposed to be divided up into thousands and thousands of denominations.  I will grant you that is purely of man


No argument there.


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> By using God's silence to mean approval you aren't opening a can of worms you are opening an entire worm farm.



Exodus 18 is the basis of the synagogue system.  Jesus worshipped in a synagogue.  That's approval enough for me.




WaltL1 said:


> Or the idea was never intended to fix other than their immediate problem. The creation of all these denominations ...



... began 1,500 years later.


----------



## welderguy

What happened?  
Did y'all get itchy ears as described in 2 Tim.4:3-4 ?


----------



## centerpin fan

WaltL1 said:


> Or the idea was never intended to fix other than their immediate problem. The creation of all these denominations created the need of more men.



It is human nature to organize.  Cities are organized.  Armies are organized.  Businesses are organized.  Does it not follow that the church would be organized?  

I just don't see what the big deal is.


----------



## WaltL1

centerpin fan said:


> It is human nature to organize.  Cities are organized.  Armies are organized.  Businesses are organized.  Does it not follow that the church would be organized?
> 
> I just don't see what the big deal is.


There is no big deal.
It started out as me saying under the elect/predestination belief I don't see what the need for organized religion would be since a persons salvation or not is already predetermined.
Within that discussion I stated I believed organized religion is man made.
And the reason I believe that is for all the reasons you stated.
What you might be missing is I was discussing it with someone who is Primitive Baptist who believe if it isn't in the Bible you don't do it. So the conversation was mainly about is organized religion mandated by the Bible.
Its just a discussion of beliefs like any other subject we discuss.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> What happened?
> Did y'all get itchy ears as described in 2 Tim.4:3-4 ?


You will have to explain that one.
But it certainly backs up what Ive been saying about organized religion.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> What happened?
> Did y'all get itchy ears as described in 2 Tim.4:3-4 ?



2 Timothy 4:3-4
3For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Before I believed in Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved) I wondered about this verse's target audience. 
It says they will turn away. A "Totally Depraved" man can't turn away. He wouldn't be seeking the truth to begin with.
He can't understand spiritual things. 
He is a child of wrath until God elects him.
He wouldn't have "itchy ears."


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Definitely not. Christianity IS organized religion.


Not sure how you can show that with your "33,820 denominations" quote.


WaltL1 said:


> I started out by saying, based on the belief in Election, I don't see why organized religion is necessary.


I don't see the relationship.


WaltL1 said:


> It then moved to the quoting of different scripture justifying the existence of organized religion. None of which did that.


I would agree.


WaltL1 said:


> Then it was posited that organized religion exists to glorify God. I then pointed the many UN-glorifying things found in organized religion and why couldn't one glorify God without the existence of organized religion. So I have two agendas =
> 1. If one is predestined or of the Elect, what difference does it make if organized religion exists or not. And if it makes no difference why does it exist?
> 2. I believe organized religion is entirely a product of man to suit mans own interest.
> Im looking for something to show that isn't true such as God/Jesus said to create it as it exists today.


1. Providence.
2. It can not be entirely a product of man, unless man is autonomous. Religion, both true and false, serves God's purpose.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> 2 Timothy 4:3-4
> 3For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
> 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
> 
> Before I believed in Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved) I wondered about this verse's target audience.
> It says they will turn away. A "Totally Depraved" man can't turn away. He wouldn't be seeking the truth to begin with.
> He can't understand spiritual things.
> He is a child of wrath until God elects him.
> He wouldn't have "itchy ears."



Joel Osteen!!!!!


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Not sure how you can show that with your "33,820 denominations" quote.
> 
> I don't see the relationship.
> 
> I would agree.
> 
> 1. Providence.
> 2. It can not be entirely a product of man, unless man is autonomous. Religion, both true and false, serves God's purpose.





> Not sure how you can show that with your "33,820 denominations" quote.


Maybe unorganized organized religion is more accurate. 


> Organized religion (or organised religion—see spelling differences), also known as institutional religion, is religion as a social institution,[1] in which belief systems and rituals are systematically arranged and formally established.[2] Organized religion is typically characterized by an official doctrine (or dogma), a hierarchical or bureaucratic leadership structure, and a codification of rules and practices





> I don't see the relationship.


Actually I don't either and I think that's my point.
If you are predestined or of the Elect it makes no difference whether organized religion exists or not.


> 1. Providence.
> 2. It can not be entirely a product of man, unless man is autonomous. Religion, both true and false, serves God's purpose.


Sure, your particular beliefs covers any and all things man does.


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> Joel Osteen!!!!!


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> If you are predestined or of the Elect it makes no difference whether organized religion exists or not.


I would agree. Election is "prior" to creation.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Primitive Baptists believe God could elect the mocker and not elect the agnostic. This is based on election not being caused by anything the reprobate does. The mocker and agnostic are equally depraved. The lost believer is just as depraved as the atheist or Hindu.
The story of Saul being elected is a good example of how election works. Saul was totally depraved. Paul couldn't resist his election. He was a new person, born again.

My question is could Paul have gotten "itchy ears?"


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Primitive Baptists believe God could elect the mocker and not elect the agnostic. This is based on election not being caused by anything the reprobate does. The mocker and agnostic are equally depraved. The lost believer is just as depraved as the atheist or Hindu.
> The story of Saul being elected is a good example of how election works. Saul was totally depraved. Paul couldn't resist his election. He was a new person, born again.



Your use of the term "election" seems kinda off to me because,as stated above,election is prior to creation.
You seem to be conveying that it's something that happens in a person's lifetime.
I think maybe you mean "regeneration", don't you?


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> Your use of the term "election" seems kinda off to me because,as stated above,election is prior to creation.
> You seem to be conveying that it's something that happens in a person's lifetime.
> I think maybe you mean "regeneration", don't you?



You are correct, I stand corrected. The elect who were elected before creation has no bearing on the depraver's actions to include mockery. An elected person could still mock God before his regeneration because of his depravity.
Maybe the mockers have been turned over to a reprobate mind from continuously refusing God's calls. Their constant refusal to acknowledge God, after repeatedly being enlightened and drawn by Him.
But being able to refuse "regeneration' also goes against the PB belief of "Irresistible Grace."

So who get's "itchy ears?" The depraved, the reprobate, or the regenerated? 

If Election is prior to Creation, I wonder when God has decided on regeneration?  Do you think that one's regeneration time has also been predestined?


----------



## Israel

When it pleased God... to reveal his son in me...


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> If Election is prior to Creation, I wonder when God has decided on regeneration?  Do you think that one's regeneration time has also been predestined?


Isaiah 46:9-11

Only that which God purposed in eternity... comes to pass in time.


----------



## WaltL1

> depraved, the reprobate, or the regenerated


I get a mental picture of God sitting up there scratching his head saying "these folks I created sure can complicate the heck out of things".
Any of you guys willing to give me/us simplified working definitions for each of those? I looked them up in the dictionary but then translating them to Christianese is the problem - 
Depraved -
Reprobate -
Regenerated -


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> I get a mental picture of God sitting up there scratching his head saying "these folks I created sure can complicate the heck out of things".
> Any of you guys willing to give me/us simplified working definitions for each of those? I looked them up in the dictionary but then translating them to Christianese is the problem -
> Depraved -
> Reprobate -
> Regenerated -



You need to have the same "word of the day" desktop pad and use those words wherever and whenever so you can check em off the list.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> I get a mental picture of God sitting up there scratching his head saying "these folks I created sure can complicate the heck out of things".
> Any of you guys willing to give me/us simplified working definitions for each of those? I looked them up in the dictionary but then translating them to Christianese is the problem -
> Depraved -
> Reprobate -



Regenerated - I think this one is "born again" in the personal sense. New world in the big picture sense.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> I get a mental picture of God sitting up there scratching his head saying "these folks I created sure can complicate the heck out of things".
> Any of you guys willing to give me/us simplified working definitions for each of those? I looked them up in the dictionary but then translating them to Christianese is the problem -
> Depraved -
> Reprobate -
> Regenerated -



The man elected before creation is totally depraved before his regeneration. 
The non elected man is totally depraved his whole life and is never regenerated.
I'm not sure about the reprobate. Maybe the reprobate is predestined to eternal death which would make him a totally depraved, non elected person who will never be regenerated!

Maybe it's like three words to describe fire; flammable, nonflammable, and inflammable.

Even if predestined, we sure have a lot to figure out and learn as we journey towards the Light. I wonder if God intentionally meant for our journey to the truth be so complicated or if man made it that way?
Wasn't the mind in a more free state before the old Greek and Romans started trying to decipher the meaning of everything?
Before the Word of God had to be decided upon with councils of men? In that small era of time after the Old Law was replaced with councils of men's interpretations?


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Depraved -
> Reprobate -
> Regenerated -


Depraved - Wicked
Reprobate - Condemned
Regenerated - Born Again


----------



## Artfuldodger

Being turned over to a reprobate would be a good test that one wasn't elected or regenerated under either free will or predestination doctrines. 

Romans 1:28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper;

This is what caused God to turn them over to reprobates;

Romans 1:23
23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> Being turned over to a reprobate would be a good test that one wasn't elected or regenerated



.....if they die in this state, yes, it is evidence that they were not elect.
BUT....if they are still breathing, God in His great mercy can and does grant repentance to His elect(never to the non-elect).

We are all totally depraved.There is NO good in us(of ourselves).The only good we have is what's been given to us by Jesus Christ.

We were all reprobate(condemned to he11),until the grace of Jesus Christ washed our sins away.In God's mind ,His elect are sinless.

For the elect, sometime between conception and death, something happens called regeneration. It's a calling of the Holy Spirit which changes him from a person who did not know God to a "new creature" that knows God.He doesn't simply know about Him, he actually KNOWS Him.


----------



## WaltL1

Thanks Art, Gem & Welder those are pretty clear explanations.
Oh and you too brother Griz.


----------



## gemcgrew

welderguy said:


> We were all reprobate(condemned to he11),until the grace of Jesus Christ washed our sins away.In God's mind ,His elect are sinless.


Look for your contradiction here and confront it. 

Attack it.

Isaiah 43:1-4


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Look for your contradiction here and confront it.
> 
> Attack it.
> 
> Isaiah 43:1-4


Does it have something to do with being Elect before creation vs not until Jesus washed our sins away?
And I didn't look at Isaiah its just something I noticed.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Does it have something to do with being Elect before creation vs not until Jesus washed our sins away?



The minute Adam ate of the fruit, the entire human race was( legally )condemned to he11.Thus, the need for a Saviour.

All this is done in human timeline manner.But, if you want to speak in technical terms, technically, because God is not on human timeline, all the elect were sinless from eternity.It seems contradictory, I know, but from God's view, perfect sense.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Look for your contradiction here and confront it.
> 
> Attack it.
> 
> Isaiah 43:1-4



It's the redemption of the elect from creation. The elect were never reprobates. 
They were depraved until regeneration but never condemned.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> The minute Adam ate of the fruit, the entire human race was( legally )condemned to he11.Thus, the need for a Saviour.
> 
> All this is done in human timeline manner.But, if you want to speak in technical terms, technically, because God is not on human timeline, all the elect were sinless from eternity.It seems contradictory, I know, but from God's view, perfect sense.


This is not a knock on your or anyone's beliefs but for ME PERSONALLY when I have to pretend to know what God's view of something is for it to make sense, its just a work around that it doesn't make sense.
I imagine I can attribute that to my lack of faith.


----------



## welderguy

Artfuldodger said:


> It's the redemption of the elect from creation. The elect were never reprobates.
> They were depraved until regeneration but never condemned.



We should never forget what we've been saved from.He11 is real and if it were not for the atoning blood of Jesus, we would be sentenced to spend eternity there.Without complicating it with all the "what took place when" explainations.That's it basically.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> We should never forget what we've been saved from.He11 is real and if it were not for the atoning blood of Jesus, we would be sentenced to spend eternity there.Without complicating it with all the "what took place when" explainations.That's it basically.



I was saved from eternal death. I was granted everlasting life.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> We should never forget what we've been saved from.He11 is real and if it were not for the atoning blood of Jesus, we would be sentenced to spend eternity there.Without complicating it with all the "what took place when" explainations.That's it basically.



I don't think it really matters what took place when in relation to election. One could be born an elect doomed for He!! but in reality he will never go there. Why, because he has been pre-selected to receive regeneration on a future date.

So technicality he was born saved or pe-saved or promised salvation. Regardless he isn't going to suffer eternal death or He11 depending on ones views.
He was never a reprobate.  How can he really be doomed for he11?
I think Primitive Baptist believe all men are doomed for he!! as does the Free will believers. Yet if God has pre-elected or looked ahead and elected the men who chose him, in reality there are men who aren't condemned or reprobate.

Predestination or even pres-election based on man's choice, prevents certain men from being condemned.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> The minute Adam ate of the fruit, the entire human race was( legally )condemned to he11.Thus, the need for a Saviour.
> 
> All this is done in human timeline manner.But, if you want to speak in technical terms, technically, because God is not on human timeline, all the elect were sinless from eternity.It seems contradictory, I know, but from God's view, perfect sense.



Could you compare this logic to the salvation of the saints who died before Jesus died on the cross? They were more or less pre-saved or promised salvation awaiting the death of Jesus. They were as you say, elected but not regenerated. The moment Jesus died or resurrected, they were regenerated.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Is it possible that all of the elect, at the resurrection of Jesus, were regenerated at that time? Not promised regeneration but actually regenerated when Jesus resurrected?
This would include the dead and elected people who weren't even born yet?

1 Peter 1:2
God the Father knew you and chose you long ago, and his Spirit has made you holy. As a result, you have obeyed him and have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ. May God give you more and more grace and peace.
3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The actual salvation is granted from God who chose you long ago. He gave you his Spirit that makes you holy. This is all from God.
This pre-approved salvation God gives is based on the cleansing blood of Jesus, his Son. Jesus doesn't need to re-die or re-resurrect every time one is born again. Maybe the washing, regeneration is a one time event for all the elect that happened once.  

It's not just a promise of something to come in the future of the elect. It is not the cause of being elected. It's already happened.

God gave all of the elect a new birth at the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It would be easy for Jesus' resurrection to save even people who aren't born yet as God works out of the timeline of man.
I'm just wondering that instead of a promise, it's already happened.


----------



## 660griz

WaltL1 said:


> Thanks Art, Gem & Welder those are pretty clear explanations.
> Oh and you too brother Griz.



No problem. To be honest. I had to look it up. My original thought had something to do with lizard DNA.


----------



## gemcgrew

Ambush,

Brain Tricking Itself


----------



## RH Clark

I'm a Christian, but I have to say the views of most of the Christians here are as convoluted to me as to the Atheists. I don't blame the Atheists for not receiving the God presented here by the Christians.

There is no predestination as in God choosing one for Heaven and one for He11. I wish I had got in on the conversation earlier. I have presented scripture and logic to most of the Christians here in different threads concerning the fallibility of predestination and it seems to make no impact. Most Christians are so indoctrinated that they will see no doctrine except what they have been taught to accept even when I point out scripture that contradicts their doctrine.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> I'm a Christian, but I have to say the views of most of the Christians here are as convoluted to me as to the Atheists. I don't blame the Atheists for not receiving the God presented here by the Christians.
> 
> There is no predestination as in God choosing one for Heaven and one for He11. I wish I had got in on the conversation earlier. I have presented scripture and logic to most of the Christians here in different threads concerning the fallibility of predestination and it seems to make no impact. Most Christians are so indoctrinated that they will see no doctrine except what they have been taught to accept even when I point out scripture that contradicts their doctrine.



Eph.1:4-6

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> I'm a Christian, but I have to say the views of most of the Christians here are as convoluted to me as to the Atheists. I don't blame the Atheists for not receiving the God presented here by the Christians.
> 
> There is no predestination as in God choosing one for Heaven and one for He11. I wish I had got in on the conversation earlier. I have presented scripture and logic to most of the Christians here in different threads concerning the fallibility of predestination and it seems to make no impact. Most Christians are so indoctrinated that they will see no doctrine except what they have been taught to accept even when I point out scripture that contradicts their doctrine.



I feel your pain.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Ambush,
> 
> Brain Tricking Itself




I understand how free will is an impossibility.  I also understand how we are built to operate as if it exists.


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> I'm a Christian, but I have to say the views of most of the Christians here are as convoluted to me as to the Atheists. I don't blame the Atheists for not receiving the God presented here by the Christians.
> 
> There is no predestination as in God choosing one for Heaven and one for He11. I wish I had got in on the conversation earlier. I have presented scripture and logic to most of the Christians here in different threads concerning the fallibility of predestination and it seems to make no impact. Most Christians are so indoctrinated that they will see no doctrine except what they have been taught to accept even when I point out scripture that contradicts their doctrine.





hobbs27 said:


> I feel your pain.



Perhaps you can offer your definitions of Omnipotence and Omniscience.


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> Perhaps you can offer your definitions of Omnipotence and Omniscience.



God is only limited in what he has chosen to limit himself. God has given the earth to man. God gave dominion and authority of the earth to man. God is Omnipotent but he has chosen to give authority to men. The one thing God will not do is break his word. 

I do believe God knows what will happen, but I do not believe he orchestrates everything that happens. Suppose I could see the future. That does not make me responsible for everything everyone else does with their free will, just because I know what they will choose to do.


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> God is only limited in what he has chosen to limit himself. God has given the earth to man. God gave dominion and authority of the earth to man. God is Omnipotent but he has chosen to give authority to men. The one thing God will not do is break his word.
> 
> I do believe God knows what will happen, but I do not believe he orchestrates everything that happens. Suppose I could see the future. That does not make me responsible for everything everyone else does with their free will, just because I know what they will choose to do.



Just for clarity I'll try to rephrase what you said so that I know that we're both on the same page.

_"God is only limited in what he has chosen to limit himself."_

Is this in reference to Omniscience or Omnipotence?  I don't suppose it matters, really. You use the word "limit" .  If we were talking about how hard God could push something, are you saying he 'limits' His pushing power it in such a way as to say "God can push harder on the thing if He wanted to but He's doesn't push with all His strength."?  Or are you using 'limit' like "This engine's output is 6,000 HP.  It can't do more.  That is it's _limit_."?

I'm sure you've heard the philosophical question "Can God make a burrito so hot that He can't eat it?"  What would be your answer.  It's a Yes or No question.  If you feel the need to qualify your answer, please do.

_"I do believe God knows what will happen,"_

Is there a chance that things can happen any other way than the way that God knows is going to happen?  I'm not saying that God makes things happen.  We're talking strictly of Omniscience, like a book that you've read or seeing the future.  You know what all the characters are going to do and they can't do other than what is written/foreseen.  Goldilocks will never, ever be found in Papa Bear's bed.  is this what you mean?  It doesn't make you responsible for Goldilock's ending up in Baby Bear's bed, but She will never do anything else.  The other two beds may just as well not have been there.


----------



## ambush80

I love the subject of God's Omnipotence and Omniscience.  It's the low hanging fruit of apologetic discourse.  It should be easier to answer than " If God is love, how come He drowns babies"?  If someone can't get their head around Omnipotence and Omniscience, they should re-think what they believe about tougher issues like Salvation.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I love the subject of God's Omnipotence and Omniscience.  It's the low hanging fruit of apologetic discourse.  It should be easier to answer than " If God is love, how come He drowns babies"?  If someone can't get their head around Omnipotence and Omniscience, they should re-think what they believe about tougher issues like Salvation.



I see salvation as a "tougher issue" only if it is seen as plan "B"...in consequence to a failed plan "A". In truth Ambush, salvation becomes remarkably simple when viewed as it is (declared) in Jesus' _taking on_ all the sin of the world. It is then, in essence, to those who believe, God saying "I take full responsibility".
That this struggle for "responsibility" is played out before man's eyes daily, (and also notably in the scriptures, as a testimony).
To be "a" one who enters this covenant, in the most particular sense, ignorant of what was done there (God, by intention, ordaining the slaughter of His own son, not merely by omniscience made known through prophesy, but inclusive in that prophecy that it "pleased" God _to do_ this)...well, if that "thing" done (to the Righteous One) by intent and foreknowledge does not make questions of drowning babies less than of primary concern, the viewer who claims to "see"...has seen nothing.
Yes, God is different than we can conceive. Where what would appear the "baddest" thing to do to an innocent, is actually the very perfection of intent and design.
But...the beginning of every relationship can, and must, be always founded upon a recognition of "not self" of _other_ to enter.
For me, if I "would to be free", I must accept the terms that have been ordained to my liberty. But, each man will show to whom he belongs, by his appointment to liberty or something else.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I see salvation as a "tougher issue" only if it is seen as plan "B".



I'll translate for any new viewers.

"You won't believe if you look for reasons to believe. You will believe only when you believe first, then reasons won't matter".


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> Just for clarity I'll try to rephrase what you said so that I know that we're both on the same page.
> 
> _"God is only limited in what he has chosen to limit himself."_
> 
> Is this in reference to Omniscience or Omnipotence?  I don't suppose it matters, really. You use the word "limit" .  If we were talking about how hard God could push something, are you saying he 'limits' His pushing power it in such a way as to say "God can push harder on the thing if He wanted to but He's doesn't push with all His strength."?  Or are you using 'limit' like "This engine's output is 6,000 HP.  It can't do more.  That is it's _limit_."?
> 
> I'm sure you've heard the philosophical question "Can God make a burrito so hot that He can't eat it?"  What would be your answer.  It's a Yes or No question.  If you feel the need to qualify your answer, please do.
> 
> _"I do believe God knows what will happen,"_
> 
> Is there a chance that things can happen any other way than the way that God knows is going to happen?  I'm not saying that God makes things happen.  We're talking strictly of Omniscience, like a book that you've read or seeing the future.  You know what all the characters are going to do and they can't do other than what is written/foreseen.  Goldilocks will never, ever be found in Papa Bear's bed.  is this what you mean?  It doesn't make you responsible for Goldilock's ending up in Baby Bear's bed, but She will never do anything else.  The other two beds may just as well not have been there.



In saying God "limits" himself, I would be more accurate to say God binds himself by his words-promises and covenants with man. God would be limitless without his own imposed limits.  As I said, God will not break his word.  I do however believe that some of those imposed limits are what makes God who he is. For instance, God does no evil ,nor does he lie.


"Is there a chance that things can happen any other way than the way that God knows is going to happen? "

I don't see things quite in this manner, so it's not a question in my view. I once asked God about Judas. I asked how Judas could be held responsible for betraying Jesus when it was prophesied by Isaiah long before Judas was even born. I believe God explained to me how he lives outside time as we know it.

We live in a linear time with one day following the last. God lives outside time. God explained to me that Judas always had a choice, it was just that Isaiah saw outside time while in the Spirit of prophesy and saw the choice Judas made. Isaiah saw a future ,to him, event, but to Judas it was happening in his now. Isaiah just saw what Judas did, and the choices he made long before Judas was born. There is some scripture to uphold this theory, such as God referring to himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. God says he declares the end from the beginning. Jesus is referred to the Lamb slain before the foundation on the world. etc.etc.

This however is not a doctrine I am attempting to teach or convert anyone to, just my personal belief concerning God and time.

So to answer your question more specifically, I believe we create our own story, even if God has already read the end.


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> I'll translate for any new viewers.
> 
> "You won't believe if you look for reasons to believe. You will believe only when you believe first, then reasons won't matter".


believers...believe. And reason is then accorded to the proper place. The place of all reason, in Whom is all reason. And from Whom all reason is given.


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> In saying God "limits" himself, I would be more accurate to say God binds himself by his words-promises and covenants with man. God would be limitless without his own imposed limits.  As I said, God will not break his word.  I do however believe that some of those imposed limits are what makes God who he is. For instance, God does no evil ,nor does he lie.



So if God were to say "I, the Lord thy God, am going to make a burrito so hot that even I cannot eat it.", which would be true?

He is all powerful and He could eat the burrito if He wanted to (which would make Him a liar)
                                                or                                                     He cannot eat the burrito (because He caused Himself not to be able to; chew on that one, kids) and is not all powerful?




RH Clark said:


> "Is there a chance that things can happen any other way than the way that God knows is going to happen? "
> 
> I don't see things quite in this manner, so it's not a question in my view. I once asked God about Judas. I asked how Judas could be held responsible for betraying Jesus when it was prophesied by Isaiah long before Judas was even born. I believe God explained to me how he lives outside time as we know it.
> 
> We live in a linear time with one day following the last. God lives outside time. God explained to me that Judas always had a choice, it was just that Isaiah saw outside time while in the Spirit of prophesy and saw the choice Judas made. Isaiah saw a future ,to him, event, but to Judas it was happening in his now. Isaiah just saw what Judas did, and the choices he made long before Judas was born. There is some scripture to uphold this theory, such as God referring to himself as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. God says he declares the end from the beginning. Jesus is referred to the Lamb slain before the foundation on the world. etc.etc.
> 
> This however is not a doctrine I am attempting to teach or convert anyone to, just my personal belief concerning God and time.
> 
> So to answer your question more specifically, I believe we create our own story, even if God has already read the end.



You didn't really answer my question about Goldilocks now, did you?

I'm glad you clarified that this position is a contrivance of your own making.  It will be patently obvious that this is what ALL believers do with scripture.


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> So if God were to say "I, the Lord thy God, am going to make a burrito so hot that even I cannot eat it.", which would be true?
> 
> He is all powerful and He could eat the burrito if He wanted to (which would make Him a liar)
> or                                                     He cannot eat the burrito (because He caused Himself not to be able to; chew on that one, kids) and is not all powerful?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't really answer my question about Goldilocks now, did you?
> 
> I'm glad you clarified that this position is a contrivance of your own making.  It will be patently obvious that this is what ALL believers do with scripture.



My contrivance, as you call it does not disagree with any scripture.

I have no need to answer stupid contrivances about burritos or Goldilocks. I would be happy to answer any real and honest questions though.


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> My contrivance, as you call it does not disagree with any scripture.
> 
> I have no need to answer stupid contrivances about burritos or Goldilocks. I would be happy to answer any real and honest questions though.




You seem to have taken issue with the use of burritos and Goldilocks as metaphor and analogy but for the life of me I can't see why.

OK. Can God make a heart so hard that He cannot soften it?  What's the difference with that question and hot burritos?

Was there any possibility that Adam would't eat the fruit?   What's the difference between that and Goldilocks.  

I think your seeming offense is grossly misplaced.


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> You seem to have taken issue with the use of burritos and Goldilocks as metaphor and analogy but for the life of me I can't see why.
> 
> OK. Can God make a heart so hard that He cannot soften it?  What's the difference with that question and hot burritos?
> 
> Was there any possibility that Adam would't eat the fruit?   What's the difference between that and Goldilocks.
> 
> I think your seeming offense is grossly misplaced.



The question is based on a premise I do not accept. I believe God created man and gave him free will. That's what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was. It was man's choice to either obey and only know good, or to disobey and to also know evil.

When the scripture speaks of God hardening Pharaoh's heart it does not mean that God caused him to do what he didn't want to do. Several Greek scholars agree that it is like the case of a mother angering a child by demanding a behavior the child didn't want to comply with. God's demand upon Pharaoh only strengthened Pharaoh's resolve to disobey. This is the manner in which God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

Yes, Adam always had the choice not to eat the fruit. In fact God had specifically given him authority over all creeping things. The word creeping in Genesis doesn't only mean those things which travel low to the ground but also that which comes by stealth. God had given Adam authority over the snake- Lucifer that came in to tempt.

I'm not offended by your questions but the burrito and Goldilocks premise seemed rather senseless to me.


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> The question is based on a premise I do not accept. I believe God created man and gave him free will. That's what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was. It was man's choice to either obey and only know good, or to disobey and to also know evil.
> 
> When the scripture speaks of God hardening Pharaoh's heart it does not mean that God caused him to do what he didn't want to do. Several Greek scholars agree that it is like the case of a mother angering a child by demanding a behavior the child didn't want to comply with. God's demand upon Pharaoh only strengthened Pharaoh's resolve to disobey. This is the manner in which God hardened Pharaoh's heart.
> 
> Yes, Adam always had the choice not to eat the fruit. In fact God had specifically given him authority over all creeping things. The word creeping in Genesis doesn't only mean those things which travel low to the ground but also that which comes by stealth. God had given Adam authority over the snake- Lucifer that came in to tempt.
> 
> I'm not offended by your questions but the burrito and Goldilocks premise seemed rather senseless to me.



You do see the flaw, do you not?
In medicine there is what is known as "Informed Consent".
What would the promise of death in disobedience mean to a man who never knew death...both its "in" and "out" working to something that knew anything except life?
Would not such a man rightly say "I am not free in will, for there is no understanding of consequence" 

If anything...such a man must always make (what we might call) the "wrong" choice. And come to that place where he learns, (may be taught) now, the will (of his own) is ineffective in all things, and that made plainest by his now inability to will himself against death, to life. 

And tell me now if that is not all of this present world in sum, man seeking to will himself to life, and that most often by proxy, against the absolute promise of death? (And taxes are merely the necessary codicil, or corollary to our agreement with death...a steady down payment...in every sense)

The imposition of salvation, as with the imposition of death, comes also as command and with promise. "Eat this, and live". The gospel is not appeal to man's will, nor to his choice or choosing "repent and believe" is by command, always and only. There is only one with such authority, the author who has written each man's end, from the beginning.

The response is one of recognition, but that, again as always and only, by revelation ordained, not willed to grasp at. No man of himself, knows anything of himself. But if he assumes so, he only knows the slavery to sin where all of his ways are right in his own eyes. But he would never even know himself a sinner until this knowledge is thrust upon him.
ALL men have willed themselves to be saved, but One. And salvation is found only there.

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;


Only one disdained the lie of the freedom of his own will to his own death. And of such a slave free men are made.

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.…

If Jesus cast aside his own will as nothing (is he righteous? each man answers) why then do men continue to tout the very thing whose lie has opposed God at every point?


"For we can do nothing against the truth...but for it"


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> You seem to have taken issue with the use of burritos and Goldilocks as metaphor and analogy but for the life of me I can't see why.
> 
> OK. Can God make a heart so hard that He cannot soften it?  What's the difference with that question and hot burritos?
> 
> Was there any possibility that Adam would't eat the fruit?   What's the difference between that and Goldilocks.
> 
> I think your seeming offense is grossly misplaced.



Even the hardest heart will be humbled one day.Every knee shall bow,and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

That includes you Ambush.


----------



## 660griz

RH Clark said:


> The question is based on a premise I do not accept. I believe God created man and gave him free will. That's what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was. It was man's choice to either obey and only know good, or to disobey and to also know evil.



What if God, realizing his mistake a little earlier,  would have chose to flood the earth at that moment or otherwise wipe the slate clean and start over? Would every human he created make the same choice? Whose fault is that? Would you tell your kids not to eat from a tree of good and delicious? I wouldn't. I would tell them it is bitter and poisonous. If you did tell them not to eat from a tree of good and delicious, even though you are not all knowing, would you be surprised to learn they had eaten from the tree?

I think the Garden of Eden story is just another fable to promote the message of obey your father and don't listen to those inner evil voices.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> What if God, realizing his mistake a little earlier,  would have chose to flood the earth at that moment or otherwise wipe the slate clean and start over? Would every human he created make the same choice? Whose fault is that? Would you tell your kids not to eat from a tree of good and delicious? I wouldn't. I would tell them it is bitter and poisonous. If you did tell them not to eat from a tree of good and delicious, even though you are not all knowing, would you be surprised to learn they had eaten from the tree?
> 
> I think the Garden of Eden story is just another fable to promote the message of obey your father and don't listen to those inner evil voices.



A miss is as good as a mile.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> A miss is as good as a mile.



I don't know about a mile.
I was going to say parable but, it had a talking snake. Could go either way.


----------



## RH Clark

660griz said:


> What if God, realizing his mistake a little earlier,  would have chose to flood the earth at that moment or otherwise wipe the slate clean and start over? Would every human he created make the same choice? Whose fault is that? Would you tell your kids not to eat from a tree of good and delicious? I wouldn't. I would tell them it is bitter and poisonous. If you did tell them not to eat from a tree of good and delicious, even though you are not all knowing, would you be surprised to learn they had eaten from the tree?
> 
> I think the Garden of Eden story is just another fable to promote the message of obey your father and don't listen to those inner evil voices.




It wasn't the tree of good and delicious, it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God did not deceive them by telling them it was good, but they just couldn't have it.

Whether the Eden event is actual or metaphorical matters not at all. The lesson to be learned is that Man was given a choice to either explicitly obey God or to suffer the consequences of his own decisions. Satan deceived man to believe that his own choices would be better.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> You do see the flaw, do you not?
> In medicine there is what is known as "Informed Consent".
> What would the promise of death in disobedience mean to a man who never knew death...both its "in" and "out" working to something that knew anything except life?
> Would not such a man rightly say "I am not free in will, for there is no understanding of consequence"
> 
> If anything...such a man must always make (what we might call) the "wrong" choice. And come to that place where he learns, (may be taught) now, the will (of his own) is ineffective in all things, and that made plainest by his now inability to will himself against death, to life.
> 
> And tell me now if that is not all of this present world in sum, man seeking to will himself to life, and that most often by proxy, against the absolute promise of death? (And taxes are merely the necessary codicil, or corollary to our agreement with death...a steady down payment...in every sense)
> 
> The imposition of salvation, as with the imposition of death, comes also as command and with promise. "Eat this, and live". The gospel is not appeal to man's will, nor to his choice or choosing "repent and believe" is by command, always and only. There is only one with such authority, the author who has written each man's end, from the beginning.
> 
> The response is one of recognition, but that, again as always and only, by revelation ordained, not willed to grasp at. No man of himself, knows anything of himself. But if he assumes so, he only knows the slavery to sin where all of his ways are right in his own eyes. But he would never even know himself a sinner until this knowledge is thrust upon him.
> ALL men have willed themselves to be saved, but One. And salvation is found only there.
> 
> Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
> 
> 
> Only one disdained the lie of the freedom of his own will to his own death. And of such a slave free men are made.
> 
> "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.…
> 
> If Jesus cast aside his own will as nothing (is he righteous? each man answers) why then do men continue to tout the very thing whose lie has opposed God at every point?
> 
> 
> "For we can do nothing against the truth...but for it"



All this part in blue is just your opinion.  It's not the truth.  And though it might work for  RH, it's useless to anyone but a believer in Jesus Christ.


----------



## 660griz

RH Clark said:


> It wasn't the tree of good and delicious, it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> The question is based on a premise I do not accept. I believe God created man and gave him free will. That's what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was. It was man's choice to either obey and only know good, or to disobey and to also know evil.
> 
> When the scripture speaks of God hardening Pharaoh's heart it does not mean that God caused him to do what he didn't want to do. Several Greek scholars agree that it is like the case of a mother angering a child by demanding a behavior the child didn't want to comply with. God's demand upon Pharaoh only strengthened Pharaoh's resolve to disobey. This is the manner in which God hardened Pharaoh's heart.
> 
> Yes, Adam always had the choice not to eat the fruit. In fact God had specifically given him authority over all creeping things. The word creeping in Genesis doesn't only mean those things which travel low to the ground but also that which comes by stealth. God had given Adam authority over the snake- Lucifer that came in to tempt.
> 
> I'm not offended by your questions but the burrito and Goldilocks premise seemed rather senseless to me.



What's the premise that you don't accept?

_"I believe God created man and gave him freewill"_

Do you also believe that God is sovereign?  How do you square the two?

_"When the scripture speaks of God hardening Pharaoh's heart it does not mean that God caused him to do what he didn't want to do.Several Greek scholars agree that it is like the case of a mother angering a child by demanding a behavior the child didn't want to comply with. God's demand upon Pharaoh only strengthened Pharaoh's resolve to disobey. This is the manner in which God hardened Pharaoh's heart."_

It sounds to me like God poked a stick at a snake and then cut it's head off for biting Him. (Then threw him in the lake of fire to burn eternally; his flesh unconsumed)

_"Yes, Adam always had the choice not to eat the fruit. In fact God had specifically given him authority over all creeping things. The word creeping in Genesis doesn't only mean those things which travel low to the ground but also that which comes by stealth. God had given Adam authority over the snake- Lucifer that came in to tempt."_

So are you saying God was surprised that Adam ate the fruit?  Did God say "Gosh,  I wish he hadn't done that?  Didn't see that coming."


As a side question, what is the difference in the burrito and Goldilocks analogy and the Biblical stories in terms of discussing freewill?


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> What's the premise that you don't accept?
> 
> _"I believe God created man and gave him freewill"_
> 
> Do you also believe that God is sovereign?  How do you square the two?
> 
> _"When the scripture speaks of God hardening Pharaoh's heart it does not mean that God caused him to do what he didn't want to do.Several Greek scholars agree that it is like the case of a mother angering a child by demanding a behavior the child didn't want to comply with. God's demand upon Pharaoh only strengthened Pharaoh's resolve to disobey. This is the manner in which God hardened Pharaoh's heart."_
> 
> It sounds to me like God poked a stick at a snake and then cut it's head off for biting Him. (Then threw him in the lake of fire to burn eternally; his flesh unconsumed)
> 
> _"Yes, Adam always had the choice not to eat the fruit. In fact God had specifically given him authority over all creeping things. The word creeping in Genesis doesn't only mean those things which travel low to the ground but also that which comes by stealth. God had given Adam authority over the snake- Lucifer that came in to tempt."_
> 
> So are you saying God was surprised that Adam ate the fruit?  Did God say "Gosh,  I wish he hadn't done that?  Didn't see that coming."
> 
> 
> As a side question, what is the difference in the burrito and Goldilocks analogy and the Biblical stories in terms of discussing freewill?



 You asked if God can make a heart so hard that he can't soften it? The premise I don't accept is that God is hardening hearts against himself.


No, I do not believe God was surprised Adam ate the fruit. The scripture refers to Jesus as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, which indicates to me that the plan for salvation was worked out before God ever created man. 

An example of the way I view God in this situation would be the way I treat my children. I tell them what to do that is good for them. I know they won't always take my advice so they will sometimes make mistakes and suffer because of them. I would like for them to listen and do well but I know they won't always and I have also made provision for helping them when they do get in trouble.



"Do you also believe that God is sovereign?  How do you square the two?" 
It's very simple. God, being sovereign can choosen to allow man to have free will. I don't see any reason that's hard to understand.



The whole Goldilocks and burrito supposition seems very belittling to me. I will answer any honest question to the best of my ability, and not attack you for simply not believing or accepting my explanation, but I won't participate in meaningless questions designed to poke fun at my beliefs. I wouldn't do that to you either.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The thing about free will and God already knowing that I don't understand is, how can I change what God already knows?


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> The thing about free will and God already knowing that I don't understand is, how can I change what God already knows?



Excellent question.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> The thing about free will and God already knowing that I don't understand is, how can I change what God already knows?



Because for you, it hasn't happened yet. Whatever you choose is what God has seen. You aren't changing something that already is, because to you, it hasn't been.

I know it's difficult to get your brain around. I also don't know for sure if God already knows every detail, or just the end result. 

The only thing we can know for sure is what's in the scripture. We do know that God knows the ending because John was caught up in the Spirit and saw it in a vision when he wrote Revelations.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God has already seen everything and knows when it ends, then even he has no free will. How can God be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time? His foreknowledge limits his ability to do anything about it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God has already seen what choices I'm gonna make, even if they haven't happened yet, how can I make different choices? 
I've got to be limited by what God has already seen.

Unless God bases his action on my reactions. He let's me truly have a free choice and then reacts to my choice basing his plans on my plans. 

Example; God let's me decide how long I'll live (within reason) by how well I take care of myself and by not taking part in risky behavior. I can eat right and exercise and live longer. Then what about fate? Suppose I drive in a rainstorm and run off the road vs waiting until it quits raining?  Was that my choice? Even if God foresaw that I would wait for the rain to stop? If God foresaw that I would wait then how could I not?


----------



## WaltL1

RH Clark said:


> Because for you, it hasn't happened yet. Whatever you choose is what God has seen. You aren't changing something that already is, because to you, it hasn't been.
> 
> I know it's difficult to get your brain around. I also don't know for sure if God already knows every detail, or just the end result.
> 
> The only thing we can know for sure is what's in the scripture. We do know that God knows the ending because John was caught up in the Spirit and saw it in a vision when he wrote Revelations.


I'm going to go against the A/A grain here and say this actually makes sense to me. I never could make the connection that just because "god knows" what you will choose that you then don't have a choice. I do see a difference between knowing and making/forcing/choosing for you.
That then leads to a question about this whole predestination thing. If "god" literally predestined you to something then that would cancel out freewill to do anything else. Same goes for the opposite. If he didn't you couldnt.
The position that both freewill AND predestination can exist at the same time seems like a major contradiction to me.
One of many.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I'm going to go against the A/A grain here and say this actually makes sense to me. I never could make the connection that just because "god knows" what you will choose that you then don't have a choice. I do see a difference between knowing and making/forcing/choosing for you.
> That then leads to a question about this whole predestination thing. If "god" literally predestined you to something then that would cancel out freewill to do anything else. Same goes for the opposite. If he didn't you couldnt.
> The position that both freewill AND predestination can exist at the same time seems like a major contradiction to me.
> One of many.



Did God know that He was going to be disappointed by man and that He would drown all the babies and children in a flood?  Does He know from the beginning of time that I will burn in He11 for eternity or not?

If _anyone_ can see the future then you don't have any choices.  RH is correct that they seem like choices to you but logically they are not.

Harris' argument against freewill is pretty iron clad and he doesn't invoke magical omniscience.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> If God has already seen everything and knows when it ends, then even he has no free will. How can God be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time? His foreknowledge limits his ability to do anything about it.



How about them apples?


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> Did God know that He was going to be disappointed by man and that He would drown all the babies and children in a flood?  Does He know from the beginning of time that I will burn in He11 for eternity or not?
> 
> If _anyone_ can see the future then you don't have any choices.  RH is correct that they seem like choices to you but logically they are not.
> 
> Harris' argument against freewill is pretty iron clad and he doesn't invoke magical omniscience.



If _anyone_ can see the future then you don't have any choices. 

It only seems that way to you because you just see it as a future that is already set. You have to imagine what it would be like if you weren't constrained by time at all. Imagine that all times, past, present, and future are one "now" for you. You can see all times as happening right now and enter into any moment.

In that situation I could see the choices you make while you are making them at any time in your existence. In that situation Isaiah could see the choices Judas made as he was making them and write about it long before Judas was born.


----------



## ambush80

I just had a revelation today.  The efforts made by people trying to make sense of the obvious problems in scripture is like reading a Chilton's manual and  it says to use a  #3 bolt 48TPI when clearly the right part is a #3 56TPI.  You guys keep trying to force the bolt in instead of realizing the error in the manual.


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> If _anyone_ can see the future then you don't have any choices.
> 
> It only seems that way to you because you just see it as a future that is already set. You have to imagine what it would be like if you weren't constrained by time at all. Imagine that all times, past, present, and future are one "now" for you. You can see all times as happening right now and enter into any moment.
> 
> In that situation I could see the choices you make while you are making them at any time in your existence. In that situation Isaiah could see the choices Judas made as he was making them and write about it long before Judas was born.



You mean imagine a magical being that can actually do that.

How far can Spiderman shoot his web?


----------



## Israel

Part of the fault is believing God is experiencing time as we may be.
What is "future" to God?
What is past...to Him who is all?
And there "is" is even a poor word.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Regardless of how we or God view or are in or out of time, if God has looked ahead and knows who will choose Jesus and who won't, how can anyone go against what God has already seen?

Suppose God didn't make it happen. He only saw what "will" happen. In his eyes it "has" happened. The story has already been written. How can anyone change what God has already written? How can God base his plan on our actions?

This is how I and Oneness believers see the Word being with God. He wasn't physically or spiritually with God except in God's word/plan/mind. This existing out of time thing that God does.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If I go to my closet and decide to choose between my red shirt and my blue shirt and pick my red shirt, God already knew this from the beginning of time. How can I at that time, choose my blue shirt? 

By me having a choice makes all of my future events change in the process. Suppose a sniper is to kill the man leaving my house wearing the red shirt but I chose the blue shirt. Then by living God has to re-write my life story. 

If I was suppose to drive my bicycle to work and die in an accident but chose to take the subway instead, then my whole fate was changed by my decision. By cheating fate, I then get to live longer.
If by not dying when I was suppose to, I come to accept Jesus, wouldn't this have been God's plan all along?
Isn't God's will always done?


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> Regardless of how we or God view or are in or out of time, if God has looked ahead and knows who will choose Jesus and who won't, how can anyone go against what God has already seen?
> 
> Suppose God didn't make it happen. He only saw what "will" happen. In his eyes it "has" happened. The story has already been written. How can anyone change what God has already written? How can God base his plan on our actions?
> 
> This is how I and Oneness believers see the Word being with God. He wasn't physically or spiritually with God except in God's word/plan/mind. This existing out of time thing that God does.



Think about that there, if you would. Does God inhabit a certain day...and other "days" are yet future to Him...as in the "if God has looked ahead..."
Is His completeness somehow locked into a thing he is subject to? Again...as in future...and past...or is he the all things as best one might say "at once"?

But even "at once" has a smell of time.

I like what a brother recently said "as all is present to God"...in the fullest sense of the word present.


But your thinking reminds me of this thing I heard decades ago...somewhere. It may or may not be some sort of old story. or even someone just relating a TV show, like Twilight Zone, to me.

So this guy is in this town...or something and he is walking along and he sees "death" approaching him. He is terrified. He says within himself "I will flee to (let's say) Marrakesh" and so he beats a hasty retreat.

Death says to his walking companion, I don't know why he ran off like that in such a hurry, I was not coming for him now. Our appointment is in Marrakesh.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Did God know that He was going to be disappointed by man and that He would drown all the babies and children in a flood?  Does He know from the beginning of time that I will burn in He11 for eternity or not?
> 
> If _anyone_ can see the future then you don't have any choices.  RH is correct that they seem like choices to you but logically they are not.
> 
> Harris' argument against freewill is pretty iron clad and he doesn't invoke magical omniscience.


My lack of skills verbalizing what I'm thinking might be apparent here but.....
I see knowing what is going to happen and actually making it happen as two different things. The predominant question is "so if God knows what happens can you make any other choice"?
I see it as the answer can be no but not because he made/forced the choice. He simply "sees" what the end result is.
Now as to your questions yes if God is omni everything then yes it raises lots of questions as to why a loving God wouldn't show some love and change the future.
Additionally if God predetermined, not just knew but actually predetermined, who would believe and who wouldn't then there is no getting around that he creates people for human firewood, committed near genocide etc etc.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> My lack of skills verbalizing what I'm thinking might be apparent here but.....
> I see knowing what is going to happen and actually making it happen as two different things. The predominant question is "so if God knows what happens can you make any other choice"?
> I see it as the answer can be no but not because he made/forced the choice. He simply "sees" what the end result is.
> Now as to your questions yes if God is omni everything then yes it raises lots of questions as to why a loving God wouldn't show some love and change the future.
> Additionally if God predetermined, not just knew but actually predetermined, who would believe and who wouldn't then there is no getting around that he creates people for human firewood, committed near genocide etc etc.



Either way, God causing or just seeing, makes it impossible for us to change anything. He already knows who will and who won't. They appear to be two different things and maybe they are but with the same outcome.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Either way, God causing or just seeing, makes it impossible for us to change anything. He already knows who will and who won't. They appear to be two different things and maybe they are but with the same outcome.


I think I agree. But is one observing and one controlling?


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> I think I agree. But is one observing and one controlling?



Yes, but if one is observing the future, then when the present gets to that time in the future, it has to happen the way the one observing saw it. Therefore whether one is only observing or controlling matters not. It has to happen the way the observer saw it.

Neither God nor man can change the way God has observed it or controlled it. Most Christians believe some of each, God controlling some events and God observing the rest. Understanding that God did all of this observing and controlling already.
Either way it's a done deal. God observing or controlling doesn't change the fact that it can't be changed.


----------



## RH Clark

WaltL1 said:


> My lack of skills verbalizing what I'm thinking might be apparent here but.....
> I see knowing what is going to happen and actually making it happen as two different things. The predominant question is "so if God knows what happens can you make any other choice"?
> I see it as the answer can be no but not because he made/forced the choice. He simply "sees" what the end result is.
> Now as to your questions yes if God is omni everything then yes it raises lots of questions as to why a loving God wouldn't show some love and change the future.
> Additionally if God predetermined, not just knew but actually predetermined, who would believe and who wouldn't then there is no getting around that he creates people for human firewood, committed near genocide etc etc.



That's pretty much the way I see it. I think you did fine verbalizing it. 

I do not believe God creates anyone for firewood. That would negate the scripture that says that God would have all men be saved and come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. I believe the choice-free will is actually necessary to have anyone who will actually truly love God. There can be no true love unless there is a choice to hate. I think God gave us the choice-free will so that he could have children who would truly love him.


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> That's pretty much the way I see it. I think you did fine verbalizing it.
> 
> I do not believe God creates anyone for firewood. That would negate the scripture that says that God would have all men be saved and come to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. I believe the choice-free will is actually necessary to have anyone who will actually truly love God. There can be no true love unless there is a choice to hate. I think God gave us the choice-free will so that he could have children who would truly love him.



What are Vessels of Wrath?


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> What are Vessels of Wrath?



Vessels of wrath are those who are not saved. Look at these scriptures speaking of vessels. I believe all can be saved, if they so choose.

2 Timothy 2:19-22King James Version (KJV)

19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.


----------



## Artfuldodger

RH Clark said:


> Vessels of wrath are those who are not saved. Look at these scriptures speaking of vessels. I believe all can be saved, if they so choose.
> 
> 2 Timothy 2:19-22King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
> 
> 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
> 
> 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
> 
> 22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.



At what point in creation did God's foreknowledge let him observe that some of the Atheist on this forum would forever deny his Son? Did he know or observe this before he created them? If so then he created individuals knowing full well they'd never use their free will to accept Jesus.


----------



## RH Clark

Artfuldodger said:


> At what point in creation did God's foreknowledge let him observe that some of the Atheist on this forum would forever deny his Son? Did he know or observe this before he created them? If so then he created individuals knowing full well they'd never use their free will to accept Jesus.



Did God create them in the manner in which you speak, fashioning each individual, or did God just create man in the beginning and tell them to be fruitful and multiply?

I would say that God gives life to every individual. Jeremiah says that the thoughts he thinks toward us are good and not evil. Doesn't the scriptures say he grants rain to fall for both the just and unjust? God is good to all and grants the gift of life to all, not just those who will seek him as father. Wouldn't God be unjust if he didn't give the same opportunity for salvation to all?


----------



## Israel

RH Clark said:


> Did God create them in the manner in which you speak, fashioning each individual, or did God just create man in the beginning and tell them to be fruitful and multiply?
> 
> I would say that God gives life to every individual. Jeremiah says that the thoughts he thinks toward us are good and not evil. Doesn't the scriptures say he grants rain to fall for both the just and unjust? God is good to all and grants the gift of life to all, not just those who will seek him as father. Wouldn't God be unjust if he didn't give the same opportunity for salvation to all?




Isn't that the question Paul presumes would follow... and answers in Roman's 9:14?

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

And at heart...isn't that the question assumed in the garden? In essence isn't the temptation so presented as to make God appear as with-holder?

The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 


The assumption presented is that God does not want man to be like Him...and is therefore jealously instructing man to keep to himself a thing?

What of Jesus? Is he content to not "know everything"? 
"But of this day and hour knows no man, not even the Son..." Is he fully persuaded that it is enough to be in communion with his Father?


"For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.


So, we see two men. The first grasping at being "like God"...persuaded God is with holding something from him he must secure for himself.

The other man, content to abide and be shown, as the Father wills, the things he is about.

One is either troubled that "someone" knows more (indeed all), and provoked to sin. The other, knows only and cares only to abide in the love of God his Father, knowing if and when, as it appears good to the Father, he will be shown what is for him.

One brings death. One brings salvation.

One meets both men, daily.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> What are Vessels of Wrath?


The objects of God's wrath, created for destruction. They can never be anything else. It is not based upon any foreseen condition about the individual, it is God's decision alone.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> The objects of God's wrath, created for destruction. They can never be anything else. It is not based upon any foreseen condition about the individual, it is God's decision alone.


As of yet, you are the only person that I've ever discussed the subject of predetermination, the Elect, whatever you want to call it, that's willing to admitt that.
To me it's simple. If God created all and predetermined some to be saved then the rest were created to be firewood.
No amount of regurgitating scripture or making excuses can change that.
If you try to say otherwise then it's obvious that you see something wrong with it at which point you should be reevaluating your beliefs of predetermination, the Elect etc.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> Yes, but if one is observing the future, then when the present gets to that time in the future, it has to happen the way the one observing saw it. Therefore whether one is only observing or controlling matters not. It has to happen the way the observer saw it.
> 
> Neither God nor man can change the way God has observed it or controlled it. Most Christians believe some of each, God controlling some events and God observing the rest. Understanding that God did all of this observing and controlling already.
> Either way it's a done deal. God observing or controlling doesn't change the fact that it can't be changed.


Yes.
But it's not that it CAN'T be changed its that it WASN'T changed. 
Seeing what you did before you did it is not the same as locking you into a path before you did it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

How can one change what God has already seen happen? God has already seen that it was or wasn't changed. If it hasn't already been changed, then it can't be changed. The path has to already be locked by God already seeing it.


----------



## Artfuldodger

"Wouldn't God be unjust if he didn't give the same opportunity for salvation to all?"

I don't believe so as mentioned in Romans 9:14 and Romans 11:33;

Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!

How can we say God has offered salvation to everyone in the past when we know that his Gospel hasn't reached everyone in the past? 

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> As of yet, you are the only person that I've ever discussed the subject of predetermination, the Elect, whatever you want to call it, that's willing to admitt that.
> To me it's simple. If God created all and predetermined some to be saved then the rest were created to be firewood.
> No amount of regurgitating scripture or making excuses can change that.
> If you try to say otherwise then it's obvious that you see something wrong with it at which point you should be reevaluating your beliefs of predetermination, the Elect etc.



I believe this too,same as Gem.
And I'm fairly confident that Israel and Hummer do also.(they can correct me if I'm wrong)


----------



## Artfuldodger

I'm pretty sure God's omniscience allowed him to see the path each of us would take before he created us. Unless he wears blinders. I use to think that was what he did. He just chose to not micro-manage everything. He'd let us do something using our free will and then he'd intervene afterwards.

But if he has already seen everything, how can even he change what he has already seen? If he has already seen who will or who won't accept Jesus, then as Walt says, "It's not that it can't be changed, it's that it wasn't changed."

Either way it can't be changed. The story has already been written in the Word. If God wrote the beginning and the end, I'm sure he wroth the parts in between too.


----------



## WaltL1

Artfuldodger said:


> How can one change what God has already seen happen? God has already seen that it was or wasn't changed. If it hasn't already been changed, then it can't be changed. The path has to already be locked by God already seeing it.


I think we may be saying the same thing but coming at it from two different angles.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I think so, my point is either way it's too late to change the future whether God caused it or observed it, it's a done deal in his eyes.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I believe this too,same as Gem.
> And I'm fairly confident that Israel and Hummer do also.(they can correct me if I'm wrong)


If that's true then many of your beliefs you have communicated here contradict each other. That's been pointed out numerous times.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> If that's true then many of your beliefs you have communicated here contradict each other. That's been pointed out numerous times.



Refresh me on the contradictions you refer to....if you don't mind.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Refresh me on the contradictions you refer to....if you don't mind.


Maybe it would be more accurate to say you believe the bible to be the word of God and the bible contradicts your beliefs in predestination/Election.
For example -
The go forth and spread the word thing.
Why? The only ones who are going to believe are the ones who were predestined to believe anyway. So they will believe whether you spread the word or not.
God doesn't do evil things. What do you call creating people for the sole purpose of causing them to suffer? 
God loves his creation. Well no apparently he only loves part of his creation.
Just a few but if you actually give it some thought you can come up with lots more.
And you could do a search on this forum of "you just contradicted yourself" and "you just said this and now you are saying this".


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe it would be more accurate to say you believe the bible to be the word of God and the bible contradicts your beliefs in predestination/Election.
> For example -
> The go forth and spread the word thing.
> Why? The only ones who are going to believe are the ones who were predestined to believe anyway. So they will believe whether you spread the word or not.
> God doesn't do evil things. What do you call creating people for the sole purpose of causing them to suffer?
> God loves his creation. Well no apparently he only loves part of his creation.
> Just a few but if you actually give it some thought you can come up with lots more.
> And you could do a search on this forum of "you just contradicted yourself" and "you just said this and now you are saying this".



Apparently you have misunderstood me on every one of these points.

If you can be more specific I will attempt to clear up if so desired.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Apparently you have misunderstood me on every one of these points.
> 
> If you can be more specific I will attempt to clear up if so desired.



It's really not a matter of me understanding or misunderstanding.
It's a matter of oposing beliefs.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> I think so, my point is either way it's too late to change the future whether God caused it or observed it, it's a done deal in his eyes.



Glad to see you finally came around.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe it would be more accurate to say you believe the bible to be the word of God and the bible contradicts your beliefs in predestination/Election.
> For example -
> The go forth and spread the word thing.
> Why? The only ones who are going to believe are the ones who were predestined to believe anyway. So they will believe whether you spread the word or not.
> God doesn't do evil things. What do you call creating people for the sole purpose of causing them to suffer?
> God loves his creation. Well no apparently he only loves part of his creation.
> Just a few but if you actually give it some thought you can come up with lots more.
> And you could do a search on this forum of "you just contradicted yourself" and "you just said this and now you are saying this".



You have to ask all those questions with a two caveats.

1. God is righteous and loving in all he does.
2. An Elect must do what God says.

Number one covers EVERYTHING.  It's the ultimate catch all.  Whatever God does (insert any imaginable, horrific thing) is righteous and loving.  This notion is inextricably tied to the statement "His ways are not our ways" which is to say we can't use adjectives that apply to us like evil, cruel, sadistic etc.. because they are negated by the fist rule.  

Number two compels the Elect to preach to everyone; elect and vessels of wrath, especially since they don't know which are which.  (We don't need to talk about how His sovereignty causes all these interactions just yet).  First we have to make sure that our resident believers are using their God given logic to see that they lack freewill.  Like I said before, it's the low hanging fruit of Biblical Theology.  If you can't get this right you can't discuss any of it.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> You have to ask all those questions with a two caveats.
> 
> 1. God is righteous and loving in all he does.
> 2. An Elect must do what God says.
> 
> Number one covers EVERYTHING.  It's the ultimate catch all.  Whatever God does (insert any imaginable, horrific thing) is righteous and loving.  This notion is inextricably tied to the statement "His ways are not our ways" which is to say we can't use adjectives that apply to us like evil, cruel, sadistic etc.. because they are negated by the fist rule.
> 
> Number two compels the Elect to preach to everyone; elect and vessels of wrath, especially since they don't know which are which.  (We don't need to talk about how His sovereignty causes all these interactions just yet).  First we have to make sure that our resident believers are using their God given logic to see that they lack freewill.  Like I said before, it's the low hanging fruit of Biblical Theology.  If you can't get this right you can't discuss any of it.



Yeah I struggle with #1. It strikes me that a believer somewhere, somehow, hiding in the recesses of their mind would have to come up with "purposely drowning kids isn't a good thing regardless of who does it".
But maybe I misjudge the level of fear/indoctrination or whatever it is.
As for #2 I don't question why the believer does it I question why it would be necessary if the Elect have no choice to believe and the non Elect not to believe.
The dots don't connect.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I struggle with #1. It strikes me that a believer somewhere, somehow, hiding in the recesses of their mind would have to come up with "purposely drowning kids isn't a good thing regardless of who does it".
> But maybe I misjudge the level of fear/indoctrination or whatever it is.



I think it's more like a form of codependence.  Or like a battered spouse that says "He hits us because he loves us".  It's part of that whole "filthy rags" thing.  They have many Biblical examples of how they shouldn't use their own ideas about what right and wrong are, Abraham and Isaac, for example. Trust and obey.  That's it. That's all of it.




WaltL1 said:


> As for #2 I don't question why the believer does it I question why it would be necessary if the Elect have no choice to believe and the non Elect not to believe.
> The dots don't connect.



Of course they don't connect.  They have to loopdey loop around to make it "work" or like most of them do they are content to not understand and they "leave it at the foot of the cross".  I think that's what RH will do.  Just ignore it till it goes away.  They never question whether or not there is a mistake in the manual.  Did you see my bolt analogy?


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> The objects of God's wrath, created for destruction. They can never be anything else. It is not based upon any foreseen condition about the individual, it is God's decision alone.





WaltL1 said:


> As of yet, you are the only person that I've ever discussed the subject of predetermination, the Elect, whatever you want to call it, that's willing to admitt that.
> To me it's simple. If God created all and predetermined some to be saved then the rest were created to be firewood.
> No amount of regurgitating scripture or making excuses can change that.
> If you try to say otherwise then it's obvious that you see something wrong with it at which point you should be reevaluating your beliefs of predetermination, the Elect etc.




Logically, it's the only way to make sense of scripture.  God made some people as firewood; they were born to burn in He11.  It actually makes things make sense.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Logically, it's the only way to make sense of scripture.  God made some people as firewood; they were born to burn in He11.  It actually makes things make sense.



Duh
Im glad you're finally catching on.

WHEW!!!


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Duh
> Im glad you're finally catching on.
> 
> WHEW!!!



You're the one that argued for freewill.  Do we need to revisit that conversation?


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> You're the one that argued for freewill.  Do we need to revisit that conversation?



I contend that there is NO freewill in eternal salvation,that is,to choose to be saved or not.God made that choice.

I also contend that we DO make choices in other matters other than salvation according to the will that God works in us.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> I contend that there is NO freewill in eternal salvation,that is,to choose to be saved or not.God made that choice.
> 
> I also contend that we DO make choices in other matters other than salvation according to the will that God works in us.



http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=861397&page=7

Start around post 161 and tell me that you understand what you're talking about.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I contend that there is NO freewill in eternal salvation,that is,to choose to be saved or not.God made that choice.
> 
> I also contend that we DO make choices in other matters other than salvation according to the will that God works in us.


So do you contend that all the people who go to church, financially support that church, believe with all their heart, in some cases commit attrocities, disown their gay child, who then commits suicide because of that rejection...
Are they all Elect ?


----------



## RH Clark

I'm the one who argues for free will. I do not believe God chooses some for Heaven and some for he11.

The scriptures do talk about predestination but that only means what God has predestined for those who get saved.

The "elect" in the scriptures is not talking about people God chooses for salvation that will be saved no matter what they do or choose. The "elect" speaks of God's chosen people that should be saved because of the covenant God made with them. Even the elect however can be lost. Just look at this scripture that clearly states that the elect need to be saved.

2 Timothy 2:9-10King James Version (KJV)
9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.

10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> So do you contend that all the people who go to church, financially support that church, believe with all their heart, in some cases commit attrocities, disown their gay child, who then commits suicide because of that rejection...
> Are they all Elect ?



I do not contend that.
I would bet lots of folks thought the thief on the cross was bound for he11,but Jesus told him otherwise.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=861397&page=7
> 
> Start around post 161 and tell me that you understand what you're talking about.



Ok.I read it.Where do you see a problem?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Ok.I read it.Where do you see a problem?



In 161 you don't see anything contradictory?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Kinda weird to believe salvation is by predestination/election  but everything else is free will. Most election believers are 100% predestination believers. If free will is true then the person elected could take their own life before they received the Holy Spirit. Say if during their total inability period they partake of risky behavior.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In 161 you don't see anything contradictory?



No.please point it out to me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:
			
		

> Man is the reason for ALL the disease and murder and evil.Not God.Sure,He knew it would happen.He knows everything.But He's not to blame for it.



God made man, knew what would happen, and yet has no blame.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

And that's just the most glaring thing in that post to me. I don't have the time to go full bore on it right now.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Is it possible one has free will during their depraved period but looses it after God's irresistible grace causes them to believe and repent?
Maybe it's the other way. No free will during the depraved period and losing it at their effectual calling.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it possible one has free will during their depraved period but looses it after God's irresistible grace causes them to believe and repent?
> Maybe it's the other way. No free will during the depraved period and losing it at their effectual calling.



If God knows everything you're going to do before you're even born, there is no free will. You're just a monkey dancing to his music. When it's playing you dance, when it stops you die.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> God made man, knew what would happen, and yet has no blame.



Correct.
Why would you blame God for what man did?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Correct.
> Why would you blame God for what man did?



God _made_ man. Did he not? Knew all of us and what we were capable of/going to do before birth?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> God _made_ man. Did he not? Knew all of us and what we were capable of/going to do before birth?



He made us.But He did not MAKE us sin.In fact He gave clear instructions of what was permissible and what was forbidden.Did He not?

You sound like those that want to sue gun manufacturers for making the gun that murdered someone.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In 161 you don't see anything contradictory?



There are pages of him not getting it.  I was hoping some time had caused him reconsider his error.  

Apparently not

Welder, 

If you can't figure out this simple detail then I doubt you can understand salvation.  You might be one of the Un-elect.  You're showing some tainted fruit here.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> He made us.But He did not MAKE us sin.In fact He gave clear instructions of what was permissible and what was forbidden.Did He not?
> 
> You sound like those that want to sue gun manufacturers for making the gun that murdered someone.



That's the worst analogy I've seen in a long time, anywhere.


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> I'm the one who argues for free will. I do not believe God chooses some for Heaven and some for he11.
> 
> The scriptures do talk about predestination but that only means what God has predestined for those who get saved.
> 
> The "elect" in the scriptures is not talking about people God chooses for salvation that will be saved no matter what they do or choose. The "elect" speaks of God's chosen people that should be saved because of the covenant God made with them. Even the elect however can be lost. Just look at this scripture that clearly states that the elect need to be saved.
> 
> 2 Timothy 2:9-10King James Version (KJV)
> 9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
> 
> 10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.



Is God ever surprised by anything we do?  Just to save you the time, I'll anticipate your answer.  "He made us creatures with freewill but he knows what we'll do."  Is that close? That's what I have picked up from what you've been posting.  If that's correct, read it again, slowly, word for word and see if it still makes sense.


(And as extra credit, thanks to Artful: Does God ever get surprised by anything He does?)


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> God _made_ man. Did he not? Knew all of us and what we were capable of/going to do before birth?



Walt,

Check this out:

If God makes a ball and He makes gravity and He makes a man that He knows will push the ball down a hill, did God make the ball roll down the hill?

_"He made the man that He knew would push the ball."_

I can't make it any clearer than that.


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> God _made_ man. Did he not? Knew all of us and what we were capable of/going to do before birth?


In the beginning God created...

God is ultimate cause.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> In the beginning God created...
> 
> God is ultimate cause.



Why is this so hard for the other believers to get?  Why do they struggle with God's sovereignty?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Walt,
> 
> Check this out:
> 
> If God makes a ball and He makes gravity and He makes a man that He knows will push the ball down a hill, did God make the ball roll down the hill?
> 
> _"He made the man that He knew would push the ball."_
> 
> I can't make it any clearer than that.



Me?
I would say yes he did. 
Or maybe more accurately, using your parameters, he created all the conditions that could have no other end result.
But I think that describes predestionation?


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> Is God ever surprised by anything we do?  Just to save you the time, I'll anticipate your answer.  "He made us creatures with freewill but he knows what we'll do."  Is that close? That's what I have picked up from what you've been posting.  If that's correct, read it again, slowly, word for word and see if it still makes sense.
> 
> 
> (And as extra credit, thanks to Artful: Does God ever get surprised by anything He does?)



No. My answer is that I honestly don't know. I have opinions but they are just conjecture on my part. I would only know if I had specific scripture for that question.

What I suspect is that God chooses not to know some things, just as he chooses to remember sins no more of those who are saved.


----------



## RH Clark

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> God made man, knew what would happen, and yet has no blame.



Do you have children? I have children. I knew before I ever decided to have children that they wouldn't do everything I told them to do. I also knew that my children would at some time experience great grief and pain, yet I chose to have children anyway.


----------



## WaltL1

RH Clark said:


> Do you have children? I have children. I knew before I ever decided to have children that they wouldn't do everything I told them to do. I also knew that my children would at some time experience great grief and pain, yet I chose to have children anyway.


Would you kill them and start over for not doing everything you expected?
Why or why not?
EDIT - that sounds like a nasty question but it's not meant to be. I appreciate how you are approaching and responding to these questions.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> Why is this so hard for the other believers to get?  Why do they struggle with God's sovereignty?


Believers don't struggle with God's sovereignty. 

They submit to it.


----------



## RH Clark

WaltL1 said:


> Would you kill them and start over for not doing everything you expected?
> Why or why not?
> EDIT - that sounds like a nasty question but it's not meant to be. I appreciate how you are approaching and responding to these questions.



No, I surly wouldn't kill them and start over. I don't believe that's exactly what God did either if you are talking about the flood.

I think the flood may have actually been an act of mercy. I think the whole earth balance-system was screwed up because of sin. It's likely the great pressures within the earth would have completely destroyed the earth ,had not the flood relieved that pressure. Just think, God had Noah preach for 200 years trying to save people from the flood. That seems a bit out of character for a God that's so mad at sin that he wants to kill them all.

I know the way the king James reads it looks like God sent the flood to kill evil people. I've read after  scholars that explain that there were basically no permissive verbs in the original language so many were translated as causative.  It may be though that the King James has it right.

I do know though from other scripture that sin actually effects the earth as well, and studying some things from Dr. Carl Baugh leads me to believe the flood could have been an act of mercy.

I appreciate your attitude too sir. I have no problems with your questions. I just don't have all the answers I would like to have.


----------



## Artfuldodger

This is what happens when you think about free will existing in a world predestined by a sovereign God;


----------



## WaltL1

RH Clark said:


> No, I surly wouldn't kill them and start over. I don't believe that's exactly what God did either if you are talking about the flood.
> 
> I think the flood may have actually been an act of mercy. I think the whole earth balance-system was screwed up because of sin. It's likely the great pressures within the earth would have completely destroyed the earth ,had not the flood relieved that pressure. Just think, God had Noah preach for 200 years trying to save people from the flood. That seems a bit out of character for a God that's so mad at sin that he wants to kill them all.
> 
> I know the way the king James reads it looks like God sent the flood to kill evil people. I've read after  scholars that explain that there were basically no permissive verbs in the original language so many were translated as causative.  It may be though that the King James has it right.
> 
> I do know though from other scripture that sin actually effects the earth as well, and studying some things from Dr. Carl Baugh leads me to believe the flood could have been an act of mercy.
> 
> I appreciate your attitude too sir. I have no problems with your questions. I just don't have all the answers I would like to have.


I must say that's one of the more uhh... creative.... theories I have heard.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> Believers don't struggle with God's sovereignty.
> 
> They submit to it.



Amen.


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> This is what happens when you think about free will existing in a world predestined by a sovereign God;


Yes! Art!

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=4835549&highlight=robot+brain#post4835549

#42


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Welder,
> 
> If you can't figure out this simple detail then I doubt you can understand salvation.  You might be one of the Un-elect.  You're showing some tainted fruit here.



I think you are forgetting that salvation is not about how much we know; but about Who "knows" us. (1 Corinthians 1:18-21)


----------



## RH Clark

WaltL1 said:


> I must say that's one of the more uhh... creative.... theories I have heard.



Perhaps, but we see from Romans 8 that sin effects the earth and all of creation groans, and travails from the beginning until now waiting to be delivered from the bondage of corruption.

We also know that the majority of the water that flooded the earth came from the great depths of the earth, and we know that Noah preached for 200 years trying to convert the people.


----------



## 660griz

RH Clark said:


> Do you have children? I have children. I knew before I ever decided to have children that they wouldn't do everything I told them to do. I also knew that my children would at some time experience great grief and pain, yet I chose to have children anyway.



Did you have children because you needed someone to worship you? ....because you were bored? ...needed a hobby? ...already had a hot place and a nice place that needed populating? 

Do you think an eternal God, suddenly deciding to create an 'ant farm,' is the same as you deciding to have children? 

If you knew your children were going to be subjected to eternal suffering, would you have them anyway?
If so, you and your God deserve each other.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

RH Clark said:


> Do you have children? I have children. I knew before I ever decided to have children that they wouldn't do everything I told them to do. I also knew that my children would at some time experience great grief and pain, yet I chose to have children anyway.



I do have kids, and neither of us is God. Your analogy is invalid.


----------



## welderguy

660griz said:


> If you knew your children were going to be subjected to eternal suffering, would you have them anyway?
> If so, you and your God deserve each other.



God's adopted children will not suffer eternally.
Grace and mercy prevailed for them.


----------



## WaltL1

RH Clark said:


> Perhaps, but we see from Romans 8 that sin effects the earth and all of creation groans, and travails from the beginning until now waiting to be delivered from the bondage of corruption.
> 
> We also know that the majority of the water that flooded the earth came from the great depths of the earth, and we know that Noah preached for 200 years trying to convert the people.


I'm not sure your use of "we know" is accurate. To believe an actual world wide flood actually happened you have to believe the bible. Its not substantiated anywhere else and in fact just the oppoosite.
Even using the bible a very strong case can be made that "world wide" meant the world immediately around them.
And only in the Bible could a human do anything for 200 years. "We know" humans don't live that long.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> God's adopted children will not suffer *eternally.*
> Grace and mercy prevailed for them.



And that's the caveat that makes it all justifiable. It doesn't matter what happens here on Earth so long as you go to Heaven. 

I'm sorry, actually I'm not, but that doesn't wash with me when I see juvenile cancer patients on their death beds before they ever even got to live a life.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And that's the caveat that makes it all justifiable. It doesn't matter what happens here on Earth so long as you go to Heaven.
> 
> I'm sorry, actually I'm not, but that doesn't wash with me when I see juvenile cancer patients on their death beds before they ever even got to live a life.


Those innocent kids didn't draw the Elect card. God created them to suffer and die.
It's such a disgusting concept.
What's more disgusting is that some find that worthy of their worship.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Those innocent kids didn't draw the Elect card. God created them to suffer and die.
> It's such a disgusting concept.
> What's more disgusting is that some find that worthy of their worship.



It probably helps to think that they're also not innocent. Sin is upon us from conception and all. Stupid Adam and Eve.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It probably helps to think that they're also not innocent. Sin is upon us from conception and all. Stupid Adam and Eve.


I'm ashamed I ever bought into the idea. Well I was indoctrinated into the idea.
Very proud I was able to kick it the curb.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I'm ashamed I ever bought into the idea. Well I was indoctrinated into the idea.
> Very proud I was able to kick it the curb.



I never bought into the idea of innate sin. Even when I was a believer I held out my own ideas that our sins were our own and not generational. Yeah, we're not in the Garden because of Adam and Eve, but the rest of our punishment would be determined by our own actions. The alternative is like grounding a baby because his older brother, or grandfather, broke a lamp when they were a child. There's no rationale supporting any type of lesson there, rather punishment for punishment's sake. I can't accept that as the behavior of a benevolent being. If they do, then they're not benevolent, IMO.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I'm ashamed I ever bought into the idea. Well I was indoctrinated into the idea.
> Very proud I was able to kick it the curb.



I'm not sure believers fully believe in He11.  How could you?  Imagine what you're REALLY saying.  Someone's soul is burning in He11 for eternity.  Someone you know.  Maybe someone you loved.  It's so horrific that I don't think believers could possibly actually believe it.


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> God's adopted children will not suffer eternally.
> Grace and mercy prevailed for them.



You seem to be tip toeing.

Did God create humans knowing that many will suffer eternally?
Breaking it down:
Did God create humans?
Is God all knowing?
Is there eternal suffering for the non-elect?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It probably helps to think that they're also not innocent. Sin is upon us from conception and all. Stupid Adam and Eve.




Who were gonna eat the fruit from the beginning of time.  There's no version of the story where they don't.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> Who were gonna eat the fruit from the beginning of time.  There's no version of the story where they don't.



I know, right. 
Who created those morons?


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> I know, right.
> Who created those morons?



I bet the Bible writers are pretty embarrassed about dropping the ball on that one.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I'm not sure believers fully believe in He11.  How could you?  Imagine what you're REALLY saying.  Someone's soul is burning in He11 for eternity.  Someone you know.  Maybe someone you loved.  It's so horrific that I don't think believers could possibly actually believe it.


I don't know, I ask alot of questions for that exact reason, to give the opportunity to say what they REALLY think.
Rarely do they break from their indoctrination.
Could be a number of reasons for that.
God is watcing.
Other Christians are watching.
Don't want to give "us" any ammo.
They actually believe it and justify it to themselves any way they can.
I think selfishness is at the root of most of it.

Religion (specifically) is the ultimate mind job.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God knew the certain individuals he would eventually create, that would never believe before he created them, he had no choice but to go ahead and create them. He had already foreseen, it had already happened.
How could God change the future that he himself has already seen?


----------



## Artfuldodger

To me the enigma is God's omniscience working with his foreknowledge. It would appear his foreknowledge would limit his omniscience or the other way around. 
Both would limit his changing. I've heard it said that God never changes. Now I can see why.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> If God knew the certain individuals he would eventually create, that would never believe before he created them, he had no choice but to go ahead and create them. He had already foreseen, it had already happened.
> How could God change the future that he himself has already seen?



So he could make a rock so large that he couldn't lift it, by that "logic".


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> I'm not sure believers fully believe in He11.  How could you?  Imagine what you're REALLY saying.  Someone's soul is burning in He11 for eternity.  Someone you know.  Maybe someone you loved.  It's so horrific that I don't think believers could possibly actually believe it.


Not only do I believe it, I am thankful for it.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> To me the enigma is God's omniscience working with his foreknowledge. It would appear his foreknowledge would limit his omniscience or the other way around.
> Both would limit his changing. I've heard it said that God never changes. Now I can see why.




You keep trying to fit the wrong size bolt into the hole because the manual says to instead of using bolt that you know will work and disregarding the manual.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Not only do I believe it, I am thankful for it.




That's amazing to me. Religion is doing exactly what it's supposed to.


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> If God knew the certain individuals he would eventually create, that would never believe before he created them, he had no choice but to go ahead and create them. He had already foreseen, it had already happened.
> How could God change the future that he himself has already seen?



See how hard it is to try to figure out what a made up being is capable of?  The whole notion of a God is just a thought experiment.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> That's amazing to me. Religion is doing exactly what it's supposed to.


Of course and in both our cases.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I'm not sure believers fully believe in He11.  How could you?  Imagine what you're REALLY saying.  Someone's soul is burning in He11 for eternity.  Someone you know.  Maybe someone you loved.  It's so horrific that I don't think believers could possibly actually believe it.



Now that you're seeing a glimpse of how horrific he11 is,does that cause you to catch a glimpse of how great grace is?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Now that you're seeing a glimps of how horrific he11 is,does that cause you to catch a glimps of how great grace is?



Why have either?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why have either?



Guess that answers that question...for you anyway.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Guess that answers that question...for you anyway.



I believe in the randomness of the universe, so not really. The question is aimed at you. 

Without He!! there's no need for grace to save you, right? So why create something you _know_, not resign yourself to the possibility of, is going to be condemned to eternity suffering if it's also in your power to redeem it, or have set the game up differently from the get go so as to avoid the problem in the first place? 

Go back to the kid analogy, but this time forgo the God aspect, you know he's going to kill your spouse and you'll have to watch him be executed for it. Do you still have the kid? If so, why?


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Now that you're seeing a glimpse of how horrific he11 is,does that cause you to catch a glimpse of how great grace is?



I'm not gonna play that rigged game.  I'll deny it because I can and I should.  Denying it is good for me and for everyone else.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I believe in the randomness of the universe, so not really. The question is aimed at you.
> 
> Without He!! there's no need for grace to save you, right? So why create something you _know_, not resign yourself to the possibility of, is going to be condemned to eternity suffering if it's also in your power to redeem it, or have set the game up differently from the get go so as to avoid the problem in the first place?
> 
> Go back to the kid analogy, but this time forgo the God aspect, you know he's going to kill your spouse and you'll have to watch him be executed for it. Do you still have the kid? If so, why?



Yes I do.Because I know that things that happen in this life,no matter how horrible they are,are only temporary.God can save whomever He wants,even murderers(David).
As for my murdered spouse,God can do as He pleases for her also.
Im not trying to sugar coat it.Im telling you reality as I see it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Yes I do.Because I know that things that happen in this life,no matter how horrible they are,are only temporary.God can save whomever He wants,even murderers(David).
> As for my murdered spouse,God can do as He pleases for her also.
> Im not trying to sugar coat it.Im telling you reality as I see it.



I'm presuming then you also see doctors for medical treatment. Why? If it's God will that the patient lives, they will. If not, you're okay with that outcome, too. 

You're obviously not sugar coating it, I'm just curious how deep your faith goes.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why have either?



Cash flow.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Cash flow.



Let's try to limit cynicism. If there's one thing we know about it in here it's that it shuts down otherwise civil, and interesting, conversation.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm presuming then you also see doctors for medical treatment. Why? If it's God will that the patient lives, they will. If not, you're okay with that outcome, too.
> 
> You're obviously not sugar coating it, I'm just curious how deep your faith goes.



Sure I go to doctors.Im going to live as long as God wants me to live,but why be sick if God has provided doctors to help you?
For me to live is Christ,but to die is gain.Win win.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Sure I go to doctors.*Im going to live as long as God wants me to live,*but why be sick if God has provided doctors to help you?
> For me to live is Christ,but to die is gain.Win win.



Exactly, how do you know that God wants you to see those doctors? He may want you to purify your faith through the struggle of disease and you're interfering with that. Or he may want you to die from a simple infection run rampant and, as you said, it's win/win so why intervene and not just let his plan run its course?


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Let's try to limit cynicism. If there's one thing we know about it in here it's that it shuts down otherwise civil, and interesting, conversation.



Cynicism?
The concept of a torturous he11 is not original. However it was found that if the idea was pushed it put butts in seats which in turn put more crops/cash in the coffers.
Watched a documentary on the history channel about this exact subject. 
Religious wars aren't fought for free.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Cynicism?
> The concept of a torturous he11 is not original. However it was found that if the idea was pushed it put butts in seats which in turn put more crops/cash in the coffers.
> Watched a documentary on the history channel about this exact subject.
> Religious wars aren't fought for free.



I know, but it's perceived cynicism and derails the point. But this also isn't my circus so carry on as you wish.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Exactly, how do you know that God wants you to see those doctors? He may want you to purify your faith through the struggle of disease and you're interfering with that. Or he may want you to die from a simple infection run rampant and, as you said, it's win/win so why intervene and not just let his plan run its course?



I try to lean on His promises in those dark times of uncertainty.This one has helped me many times:

"For I know the thoughts I think towards you,sayeth the Lord,thoughts of peace and not of evil,to give you an expected end".

I try to seek His will through prayer and His written word.I dont always get it right,but He takes care of me even through the trials and afflictions.

Gotta run.Catch up later.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I know, but it's perceived cynicism and derails the point. But this also isn't my circus so carry on as you wish.


Every response we give in opposition to christianity can be perceived as cynicism...
It was a valid answer backed up by facts to the question of "why have either".
Maybe wasn't the direction you were going but a valid answer none the less.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Every response we give in opposition to christianity can be perceived as cynicism...
> It was a valid answer backed up by facts to the question of "why have either".
> Maybe wasn't the direction you were going but a valid answer none the less.



Yeah, sorry.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yeah, sorry.


I detect some cynicism in your apology 
Maybe I should have let your point play out first before jumping in.  My bad.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> it's win/win so why intervene and not just let his plan run its course?



That has been one of my points as well. "Everyone wants to go to heaven but, no one wants to die to get there."

There is always God provided the doctor, the cure, etc. There is never, God got me sick to begin with, so...I should just go with it. 

Isn't prayer for a different result going against God's master plan?

Faith appears to be only surface mounted. Lightning rods on churches, armed security inside. Hmmmm Faith?

I know, I know, God provides a means to protect from the lightning he created, etc. 

I need a drink.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I detect some cynicism in your apology
> Maybe I should have let your point play out first before jumping in.  My bad.



No, that's frustration and not with you. I was trying to let my point play out, and in the meantime between my first post and the second about it some things here at the office went belly up and made me terse.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, that's frustration and not with you. I was trying to let my point play out, and in the meantime between my first post and the second about it some things here at the office went belly up and made me terse.



I hate it when work has the audacity to interfere with my discussion time hahaha


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I hate it when work has the audacity to interfere with my discussion time hahaha



Just oversubscribed my CPU.


----------



## hobbs27

ambush80 said:


> I'm not sure believers fully believe in He11.  How could you?  Imagine what you're REALLY saying.  Someone's soul is burning in He11 for eternity.  Someone you know.  Maybe someone you loved.  It's so horrific that I don't think believers could possibly actually believe it.



I don't. I don't believe it's taught in the Bible either.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> I don't. I don't believe it's taught in the Bible either.



I don't either, I agree with Hobbs. It's either death or everlasting life.


----------



## RH Clark

WaltL1 said:


> Those innocent kids didn't draw the Elect card. God created them to suffer and die.
> It's such a disgusting concept.
> What's more disgusting is that some find that worthy of their worship.



I don't believe in the elect card as you call it. That concept would be disgusting to me also.


----------



## RH Clark

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I do have kids, and neither of us is God. Your analogy is invalid.



I don't see it as invalid at all. The scriptures call God father and even Abba which is a pet name for father such as daddy. The scriptures also refer to us as his children.

You don't accept the analogy because you don't accept the Christian God because you see him as someone not playing fair and sending people to he11 just for fun.

That's not the way I see God at all. I see God as a father that has done everything possible for his children ,including dying for them to keep them out of he11.


----------



## hobbs27

RH Clark said:


> I don't believe in the elect card as you call it. That concept would be disgusting to me also.



There was an elect. They were the Remnant of Israel. That's as far as it goes though. God has made a way for salvation through His Son Jesus Christ, that Whosoever Will..shall have eternal life.


----------



## WaltL1

hobbs27 said:


> There was an elect. They were the Remnant of Israel. That's as far as it goes though. God has made a way for salvation through His Son Jesus Christ, that Whosoever Will..shall have eternal life.



That is pretty much my understanding of who the Elect are/were.
I don't think I ever heard of this chosen before the beginning of time to be saved or not concept until I began discussing on this forum.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> That is pretty much my understanding of who the Elect are/were.
> I don't think I ever heard of this chosen before the beginning of time to be saved or not concept until I began discussing on this forum.


And you won't hear much of it. Man prefers a "man centered" religion. Man rebels against a "God centered", pure religion.


----------



## hobbs27

WaltL1 said:


> That is pretty much my understanding of who the Elect are/were.
> I don't think I ever heard of this chosen before the beginning of time to be saved or not concept until I began discussing on this forum.



I don't reject anything on its popularity, but it does not fit in the scriptures without forcing it in, and turning a blind eye to some verses. 
 That's one of the things that drives me nuts about modern organized religion.

Jeremiah 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Deuteronomy 30:19–20
19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; 20 that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your ulife and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”


----------



## 660griz

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't either, I agree with Hobbs. It's either death or everlasting life.



"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


----------



## Israel

What an offense to man that God exercises His will according to his own purpose.
Yet...man claims this for himself..."I am free"...but God...not so much.
Odd. As in...man still thinks his will superior.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

RH Clark said:


> I don't see it as invalid at all. The scriptures call God father and even Abba which is a pet name for father such as daddy. The scriptures also refer to us as his children.
> 
> You don't accept the analogy because you don't accept the Christian God because you see him as someone not playing fair and sending people to he11 just for fun.
> 
> That's not the way I see God at all. I see God as a father that has done everything possible for his children ,including dying for them to keep them out of he11.



That's but one reason I lost my faith, and no, that's not why I don't accept the analogy. Like I said, neither of us are God, nor do we know the precise future for our children, ergo the analogy is invalid. 

Okay, so let's say God died for me, Trinity and all in Jesus, am I staying out of Hades even though I don't believe?


----------



## Israel

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's but one reason I lost my faith, and no, that's not why I don't accept the analogy. Like I said, neither of us are God, nor do we know the precise future for our children, ergo the analogy is invalid.
> 
> Okay, so let's say God died for me, Trinity and all in Jesus, am I staying out of Hades even though I don't believe?



Odd.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> Odd.



How so?


----------



## hobbs27

660griz said:


> "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."



The death penalty is eternal..a punishment that cannot be reversed.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay, so let's say God died for me, Trinity and all in Jesus, am I staying out of Hades even though I don't believe?



If Jesus died for you,you already have eternal life.And you will believe,when the Holy Spirit quickens you.It could be in your last moments on this earth,but you will.

"All that the Father hath given Me SHALL come to Me,and he that cometh to me,I will in no wise cast out."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> If Jesus died for you,you already have eternal life.And you will believe,when the Holy Spirit quickens you.It could be in your last moments on this earth,but you will.
> 
> "All that the Father hath given Me SHALL come to Me,and he that cometh to me,I will in no wise cast out."



Did he die for me?


----------



## RH Clark

hobbs27 said:


> There was an elect. They were the Remnant of Israel. That's as far as it goes though. God has made a way for salvation through His Son Jesus Christ, that Whosoever Will..shall have eternal life.



Yes, I agree with that. I only meant "elect" as in a group chosen to be saved no matter what while the rest is chosen for he11. I do not believe in the elect in that manner.

The elect is mentioned in scripture but it also says they should get saved as well.


----------



## RH Clark

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's but one reason I lost my faith, and no, that's not why I don't accept the analogy. Like I said, neither of us are God, nor do we know the precise future for our children, ergo the analogy is invalid.
> 
> Okay, so let's say God died for me, Trinity and all in Jesus, am I staying out of Hades even though I don't believe?



I'm just saying the analogy works for me because that's the way I view God, as my father.


As to your second question, I won't tell you that you are going to Hades. That's between you and God and I think there's always hope until the very end. I believe Jesus died for every person ever born and all who ever will be born. I also believe that the price he paid in that death needs to be accepted by each person, as they choose.

I don't know all the reasons you lost your faith. I suspect it's mostly because of some of the crap taught in most churches. I have heard things all my life in those churches that would turn me against God too if they were true.

I do attend church now and have for the last 18 years, but I still know pastors at other places preaching traditions and other things that would turn me off real quick. I don't see how anyone could reject God if they could just see him from my view point.


----------



## Israel

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How so?



How does a man go from "OK, so let's say..."
To "even though I don't believe..."

These matters are not settled amongst men...no man can tell another man his ultimate disposition. But, I believe you may already know that.
So, why would you ask?
Do you want to court a man to being in God's place? Or, are you being courted?
(and I know you wouldn't know)

I can point to what I call thousands of assents, a multitude of experiences of grace, probably hundreds of "times" I have glimpsed/experienced something for which my own reason cannot account. Yet, they all fall and fail me particularly...if, and when, I try _to reassure myself_ of anything.
I must be assured...by what no man can do in assurance.
And what I surely cannot do for myself.

The one who tells me he causes it to rain upon the just and unjust has made sure to cut asunder anything "I" would have to offer myself, of myself.
"God has been good to me" Well, yes, I would say...he has. (but He is witness to ALL times)

I have preached. (yes he knows motive)
I have declared Jesus as Lord. (so have the goats "Lord, have we not...?")
I have seen the non breathing come back in such rapturous delight to my soul, I cannot explain.
I have said "I believe".

But of all I may know "of myself"...I do not know if I love God.

And here a man may say...what then advantage? What then of comfort...what then of assurance? What then will a soul know of itself to cause it to rejoice, if rejoicing is to be?

That I do not know. How this has been made enough remains the enigma and puzzle of all things, the "enticement" (if one may suffer such a term) to seek out a thing I cannot comprehend. There is a place...where "even" I cannot lie.
And it is enough it is reigned in by the One knowing all.
Especially this: "The Lord knows those who love Him"
And, the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, the Lord knows those who are His"
Here, it is enough that you may be...and I may not.
Why uprorious laughter is found in that place, always puzzles me, but not enough to keep me from laughing, too.


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> RH Clark,
> 
> If God makes a ball and He makes gravity and He makes a man that He knows will push the ball down a hill, did God make the ball roll down the hill?
> 
> _"He made the man that He knew would push the ball."_
> 
> I can't make it any clearer than that.



Tell me what I'm not getting.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

RH Clark said:


> I'm just saying the analogy works for me because that's the way I view God, as my father.
> 
> 
> As to your second question, I won't tell you that you are going to Hades. That's between you and God and I think there's always hope until the very end. I believe Jesus died for every person ever born and all who ever will be born. I also believe that the price he paid in that death needs to be accepted by each person, as they choose.
> 
> I don't know all the reasons you lost your faith. I suspect it's mostly because of some of the crap taught in most churches. I have heard things all my life in those churches that would turn me against God too if they were true.
> 
> I do attend church now and have for the last 18 years, but I still know pastors at other places preaching traditions and other things that would turn me off real quick. I don't see how anyone could reject God if they could just see him from my view point.



It didn't have much to do with the teachings actually. I squared the contradictions and peculiarities as human interpretation errors, mainly. 

It had to do with the darkest times in my life and despite prayer, begging, everything I could do to try to ask him to help me change it I found silence. I'll see if I can find the thread that contains it but I'm not sure I'll be able to. 

I view/viewed God, if He's there, as a Father as well. The catch point is how can a father knowingly subject his children to torment and suffering if it's within his power to prevent it? Either he wants evil people, or needs them to effect a greater end result. Either way, if he's omnipotent then he should be able to effect that greater result without the suffering. 

I wasn't a fan of organized religion when I was younger but, like I also wasn't a fan of school while I was going, I went to get other viewpoints and insights into the mystery of faith. I took college courses taught by clergy to try to get even more. 

It wasn't until that dark point in my life that I abandoned faith and took up the belief in the randomness in the universe. When good things happen it's no one's credit, and when bad things happen it's no one's fault, except my own with a spice of randomness.


----------



## Israel

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It didn't have much to do with the teachings actually. I squared the contradictions and peculiarities as human interpretation errors, mainly.
> 
> It had to do with the darkest times in my life and despite prayer, begging, everything I could do to try to ask him to help me change it I found silence. I'll see if I can find the thread that contains it but I'm not sure I'll be able to.
> 
> I view/viewed God, if He's there, as a Father as well. The catch point is how can a father knowingly subject his children to torment and suffering if it's within his power to prevent it? Either he wants evil people, or needs them to effect a greater end result. Either way, if he's omnipotent then he should be able to effect that greater result without the suffering.
> 
> I wasn't a fan of organized religion when I was younger but, like I also wasn't a fan of school while I was going, I went to get other viewpoints and insights into the mystery of faith. I took college courses taught by clergy to try to get even more.
> 
> It wasn't until that dark point in my life that I abandoned faith and took up the belief in the randomness in the universe. When good things happen it's no one's credit, and when bad things happen it's no one's fault, except my own with a spice of randomness.


Is there some other kind? I used to think I wasn't...but someone helped.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> Is there some other kind? I used to think I wasn't...but someone helped.



For us to have this discussion we have to agree on the definition of evil and, since you include 100% of the population as evil, that won't happen. I don't consider a glutton to be on the same plane as someone such as Hitler.


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> The death penalty is eternal..a punishment that cannot be reversed.



 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night” 

I understand the recent trend of not teaching the "h3ll" message in church. It is a little unnerving to think of worshiping an all loving God that would do this.

However, a Christian site I found sums it up better than I.

"The doctrine of eternal punishment was taught by Jesus Christ (who said more about h3ll than heaven), it was acknowledged by the early church, it was endorsed by the “church fathers” (Buis 1957, 53-67), and it was defended by the theologians of the Middle Ages and the Reformation period. However, beginning with the eighteenth century a new wave of “clergymen” within the ranks of “Christendom” began to deny this fundamental tenet of biblical doctrine, and today a significant segment of American society (almost half) no longer believes in h3ll.

Further, the evidence is mounting that there is a weakening posture on this theme within the church. It is time that faithful gospel preachers give more diligence to teaching the truth regarding eternal retribution. Ignoring the truth changes no reality."


----------



## Israel

Starve a glutton and you may find out what he's willing to do for some food.
Starve a nice person of their own sense of niceness...well...look around...the thief has come...though some still deny it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> Starve a glutton and you may find out what he's willing to do for some food.
> Starve a nice person of their own sense of niceness...well...look around...the thief has come...though some still deny it.



True, you'll find out what a glutton will do for food, but do you really think that makes them equal to Hitler, morally?


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Starve a glutton and you may find out what he's willing to do for some food.
> Starve a nice person of their own sense of niceness...well...look around...the thief has come...though some still deny it.



Starve anyone, and you will find out what they will do for food.


----------



## hobbs27

660griz said:


> “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
> 
> I understand the recent trend of not teaching the "h3ll" message in church. It is a little unnerving to think of worshiping an all loving God that would do this.
> 
> However, a Christian site I found sums it up better than I.
> 
> "The doctrine of eternal punishment was taught by Jesus Christ (who said more about h3ll than heaven), it was acknowledged by the early church, it was endorsed by the “church fathers” (Buis 1957, 53-67), and it was defended by the theologians of the Middle Ages and the Reformation period. However, beginning with the eighteenth century a new wave of “clergymen” within the ranks of “Christendom” began to deny this fundamental tenet of biblical doctrine, and today a significant segment of American society (almost half) no longer believes in h3ll.
> 
> Further, the evidence is mounting that there is a weakening posture on this theme within the church. It is time that faithful gospel preachers give more diligence to teaching the truth regarding eternal retribution. Ignoring the truth changes no reality."



There's a lot of ignorance out there, because people are too lazy to study. The KJV translates he11 from four words in the Bible. Sheol/Hades..Gehenna, and Tartarus. Of those four words Jesus used Gehenna mostly..maybe every time, point is Gehenna is an actual place just outside Jerusalem. It was a landfill for the city, also where the Romans disposed of the 1.1 million rotting corpses after the sacking of Jerusalem.
The evil non believers were actually cast into a Gehenna....which cannot be translated correctly as anything but Gehenna, because it is a place.

None of the words translated in the Bible as he11 actually means a place of eternal torment...So where did the idea come from? Pagans.


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> There's a lot of ignorance out there, because people are too lazy to study. The KJV translates he11 from four words in the Bible. Sheol/Hades..Gehenna, and Tartarus. Of those four words Jesus used Gehenna mostly..maybe every time, point is Gehenna is an actual place just outside Jerusalem. It was a landfill for the city, also where the Romans disposed of the 1.1 million rotting corpses after the sacking of Jerusalem.
> The evil non believers were actually cast into a Gehenna....which cannot be translated correctly as anything but Gehenna, because it is a place.
> 
> None of the words translated in the Bible as he11 actually means a place of eternal torment...So where did the idea come from? Pagans.


Now do the same thing with Jerusalem.


----------



## WaltL1

Israel said:


> Is there some other kind? I used to think I wasn't...but someone helped.



What a very sad view of humanity your religion has given you.
It may be realistic or even deserving to view yourself as evil but to automatically assume even those you have never met or know anything about as evil is very sad indeed. Maybe that is evil in itself.


----------



## 660griz

hobbs27 said:


> There's a lot of ignorance out there, because people are too lazy to study. The KJV translates he11 from four words in the Bible. Sheol/Hades..Gehenna, and Tartarus. Of those four words Jesus used Gehenna mostly..maybe every time, point is Gehenna is an actual place just outside Jerusalem. It was a landfill for the city, also where the Romans disposed of the 1.1 million rotting corpses after the sacking of Jerusalem.
> The evil non believers were actually cast into a Gehenna....which cannot be translated correctly as anything but Gehenna, because it is a place.
> 
> None of the words translated in the Bible as he11 actually means a place of eternal torment...So where did the idea come from? Pagans.



Here is another Pagan site. 
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/gehenna.asp


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
> 
> I understand the recent trend of not teaching the "h3ll" message in church. It is a little unnerving to think of worshiping an all loving God that would do this.
> 
> However, a Christian site I found sums it up better than I.
> 
> "The doctrine of eternal punishment was taught by Jesus Christ (who said more about h3ll than heaven), it was acknowledged by the early church, it was endorsed by the “church fathers” (Buis 1957, 53-67), and it was defended by the theologians of the Middle Ages and the Reformation period. However, beginning with the eighteenth century a new wave of “clergymen” within the ranks of “Christendom” began to deny this fundamental tenet of biblical doctrine, and today a significant segment of American society (almost half) no longer believes in h3ll.
> 
> Further, the evidence is mounting that there is a weakening posture on this theme within the church. It is time that faithful gospel preachers give more diligence to teaching the truth regarding eternal retribution. Ignoring the truth changes no reality."




It's one of the clashes that Christianity is having with modernity and secularism.  Some would say that it's a sign of the Apocalypse; the dilution of the Truth--Easy peasy, feel good religion.

An examination of how and why religion developed in humans will reveal the necessity of a "He11".  Without it, the point of religion becomes moot.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> What a very sad view of humanity your religion has given you.
> It may be realistic or even deserving to view yourself as evil but to automatically assume even those you have never met or know anything about as evil is very sad indeed. Maybe that is evil in itself.




A psychiatrist would have a good session with someone who feels that way about themselves and humanity.   I would call that kind of thinking evil.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> A psychiatrist would have a good session with someone who feels that way about themselves and humanity.   I would call that kind of thinking evil.



Thus the need of a reward/punishment system to keep them in check. 
Sad.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Did he die for me?



I can't answer that question.But if He did,He will reveal that to you when He's ready.It will transform your life.The Spirit will live inside you and interact with your own spirit,so that you will know and believe.Then you are sealed.Nothing then can take that away.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> I can't answer that question.But if He did,He will reveal that to you when He's ready.It will transform your life.The Spirit will live inside you and interact with your own spirit,so that you will know and believe.Then you are sealed.Nothing then can take that away.



I'm not included in the subset of "the world"?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm not included in the subset of "the world"?



If you refer to the "world" as Jesus did in John 17:9,again I can not answer that.

"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

Jesus intercedes for His people only.
If you are one of His,then you are not of the world.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> If you refer to the "world" as Jesus did in John 17:9,again I can not answer that.
> 
> "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."
> 
> Jesus intercedes for His people only.
> If you are one of His,then you are not of the world.



John 3:16 version. For God so loved the world...

That implies that he gave for me, with the only caveat being that I believe.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> A psychiatrist would have a good session with someone who feels that way about themselves and humanity.   I would call that kind of thinking evil.



I just don't understand the mental block that stops one from saying to themseles " I have no idea what this person(s) does or thinks so how can I label them as evil"?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> John 3:16 version. For God so loved the world...
> 
> That implies that he gave for me, with the only caveat being that I believe.



Do you believe?


----------



## gemcgrew

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> John 3:16 version. For God so loved the world...
> 
> That implies that he gave for me, with the only caveat being that I believe.



"For this cause the people also met him, for that they heard that he had done this miracle. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him." John 12:18,19

Does this imply that you were there?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Do you believe?



Right now, if the answer is supposed to be binary, no. The true answer is "I don't know," but that also depends on who I'm supposed to believe in. If it's believing in Jesus, I don't think he was the son of God, but I do believe he was real, so it depends on the full extent of the question.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I just don't understand the mental block that stops one from saying to themseles " I have no idea what this person(s) does or thinks so how can I label them as evil"?



I bought into that bag of poo.

It was a drag to think of every man, woman and child that I crossed paths with as evil.  I didn't recognize the psychological and emotional damage that I was inflicting upon myself until I rid myself of those idiotic notions. I did those people a great wrong and wish I could take it all back.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I bought into that bag of poo.
> 
> It was a drag to think of every man, woman and child that I crossed paths with as evil.  I didn't recognize the psychological and emotional damage that I was inflicting upon myself until I rid myself of those idiotic notions. I did those people a great wrong and wish I could take it all back.


I think maybe finding the gonads to reject that incideous way of thinking so that now you don't apply it to other people is about all the reparations one can make to them and yourself.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Right now, if the answer is supposed to be binary, no. The true answer is "I don't know," but that also depends on who I'm supposed to believe in. If it's believing in Jesus, I don't think he was the son of God, but I do believe he was real, so it depends on the full extent of the question.



Belief that Jesus is the Son of God is vital to salvation.But,contrary to what many will tell you,you simply can not believe that until the Holy Spirit quickens you.

I understand where you're at because I was once there too.


----------



## Israel

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> True, you'll find out what a glutton will do for food, but do you really think that makes them equal to Hitler, morally?



For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
How "far short" is short compared to the perfect?


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
> How "far short" is short compared to the perfect?



Come on Israel. Why the dance?
One person may do something less than moral in order to survive while Hitler performed genocide. 
I can understand why he may have God like attributes to some(genocide) but, that doesn't make it right.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
> How "far short" is short compared to the perfect?



So eating a little too much is equal to killing millions. Got it.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I think maybe finding the gonads to reject that incideous way of thinking so that now you don't apply it to other people is about all the reparations one can make to them and yourself.




Yeah.  I had to forgive myself for alot of things I did as a Christian.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Belief that Jesus is the Son of God is vital to salvation.But,contrary to what many will tell you,you simply can not believe that until the Holy Spirit quickens you.
> 
> I understand where you're at because I was once there too.



Did you grow away from religion first, or was that your starting point?


----------



## RH Clark

WaltL1 said:


> I just don't understand the mental block that stops one from saying to themseles " I have no idea what this person(s) does or thinks so how can I label them as evil"?



To me it's not about thinking of unsaved people as evil. I think there are some really nice moral people that aren't saved, and some really nasty immoral people who call themselves Christian.For me it's more about who you are trusting in, yourself or God. 

Before I was saved, I always thought God would judge me as good enough simply because I thought I was a good moral person. I didn't understand back then that I was trusting in myself and not trusting in God at all.

God always wanted men just to trust in him. He didn't even give the law and commandments as a set of rules everyone had to live by, or if they didn't he would cast them into He11. God only gave the law to show stubborn men that wanted to trust in themselves that they couldn't be good enough by following a list of rules.

The law represents what it would take to be perfect before God on your own. There is even a law that says if you break one law ,you are guilty of all. God put that one in there so men wouldn't think 80% or 90% of perfect would be good enough. Then God made it so that if you just trust in him, he will treat you just like you kept all those laws perfectly.


----------



## hobbs27

660griz said:


> Here is another Pagan site.
> http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/gehenna.asp



They aren't pagan because they believe what they are taught. They are lazy studiers and more worried about staying in line with their denomination, than they are knowing the truth.

 The idea of a place of eternal torment is straight out of paganism. None of the Apostles ever preached it.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Did you grow away from religion first, or was that your starting point?



You might say I had a bad start in religion and went away for a while.But when I was drawn back,it was a totally different new start.


----------



## WaltL1

RH Clark said:


> To me it's not about thinking of unsaved people as evil. I think there are some really nice moral people that aren't saved, and some really nasty immoral people who call themselves Christian.For me it's more about who you are trusting in, yourself or God.
> 
> Before I was saved, I always thought God would judge me as good enough simply because I thought I was a good moral person. I didn't understand back then that I was trusting in myself and not trusting in God at all.
> 
> God always wanted men just to trust in him. He didn't even give the law and commandments as a set of rules everyone had to live by, or if they didn't he would cast them into He11. God only gave the law to show stubborn men that wanted to trust in themselves that they couldn't be good enough by following a list of rules.
> 
> The law represents what it would take to be perfect before God on your own. There is even a law that says if you break one law ,you are guilty of all. God put that one in there so men wouldn't think 80% or 90% of perfect would be good enough. Then God made it so that if you just trust in him, he will treat you just like you kept all those laws perfectly.


Your religion doesn't make a distinction between saved and unsaved. Filthy rags, evil applies to all.
And just so you know my views better, when I specify religion I don't mean religion AND god, I mean religion. What you guys actually worship is religion. Everything you think you know, with the exception of what you've made up in your own mind, comes from religion. It's religion that produced and created the Bible they just told you it's the word of god.
As though a omni everything God would need a group of men to tell you anything.
Whoever it came from, however you justify it, to believe all men are evil without a clue about them other than they were born is void of all intelligence or thought or reality.
There is a reason your religion doesn't want you to trust yourself.
Once you start thinking for yourself the whole house of cards starts falling down.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> Come on Israel. Why the dance?
> One person may do something less than moral in order to survive while Hitler performed genocide.
> I can understand why he may have God like attributes to some(genocide) but, that doesn't make it right.



Who is dancing?
Did I ever suggest Hitler "did right"?
But really, more to the point, do you imagine Hitler ever awoke any morning thinking "I am the most evil and malevolent thing since Vlad the Impaler."
I am more convinced he reached over and rubbed Blondi's head, maybe scratched her behind the ears.
Evil is always "someone else".
Evil can never know itself. Of itself.
And, all of a man's ways are right in his own eyes.


God is not troubled by those who cast His name out as evil. Or crazy.

But, it's always better to be late to the party, than to miss it altogether.


----------



## Israel

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So eating a little too much is equal to killing millions. Got it.


I would not suggest you believe me. You're way too smart.
But, do a little research. And get back to me, if you care to.
Show me the place (besides inferring from his soldiering in WWI) that Hitler ever killed anyone. 
And then (maybe) tell me about the power of pride, the residence of a "goodness" in man, and the persuasions of persona and word. 

You may discover, as have I, the only man Hitler may ever have killed was himself.

But, you have already stopped hearing.


----------



## RH Clark

WaltL1 said:


> Your religion doesn't make a distinction between saved and unsaved. Filthy rags, evil applies to all.
> And just so you know my views better, when I specify religion I don't mean religion AND god, I mean religion. What you guys actually worship is religion. Everything you think you know, with the exception of what you've made up in your own mind, comes from religion. It's religion that produced and created the Bible they just told you it's the word of god.
> As though a omni everything God would need a group of men to tell you anything.
> Whoever it came from, however you justify it, to believe all men are evil without a clue about them other than they were born is void of all intelligence or thought or reality.
> There is a reason your religion doesn't want you to trust yourself.
> Once you start thinking for yourself the whole house of cards starts falling down.



You are incorrect. My religion as you say, though I reject the manner in which you refer to it, does not call people filthy rags. What it says is that our own righteousness is as filthy rags, which is exactly what I was saying about trusting in yourself. The rest is just your opinion, which you are entitled to, but which does not make you any more knowledgeable than me. 

Personally, I don't have a background of religion. I never went to church growing up, and it was an act of thinking for myself at age 30 that lead me to be born again as a Christian, after I had studied other religions while seeking truth. I am not a mindless brainwashed follower of religious tradition.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> They aren't pagan because they believe what they are taught. They are lazy studiers and more worried about staying in line with their denomination, than they are knowing the truth.
> 
> The idea of a place of eternal torment is straight out of paganism. None of the Apostles ever preached it.



An eternal separation from God is the worst torment there is,in my opinion.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> An eternal separation from God is the worst torment there is,in my opinion.



I'm not going to disagree. Dante's inferno is a myth though.


----------



## Israel

hobbs27 said:


> They aren't pagan because they believe what they are taught. They are lazy studiers and more worried about staying in line with their denomination, than they are knowing the truth.
> 
> The idea of a place of eternal torment is straight out of paganism. None of the Apostles ever preached it.



And, you, of course...would be the "better" student?
I think I hear the school bell...do you?
When you resorted to endorsing a view by quoting Justin Martyr recently, and doubled down on his being " a very influential church father" as though to further endorse his being "in your corner"...how could you neglect this? In the same place you quoted from Chapter 43 is found this, in chapter 52:



> "Since, then, we prove that all things which have already happened had been predicted by the prophets before they came to pass, we must necessarily believe also that those things which are in like manner predicted, but are yet to come to pass, shall certainly happen. For as the things which have already taken place came to pass when foretold, and even though unknown, so shall the things that remain, even though they be unknown and disbelieved, yet come to pass. For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils. And that these things also have been foretold as yet to be, we will prove. By Ezekiel the prophet it was said: Joint shall be joined to joint, and bone to bone, and flesh shall grow again; and every knee shall bow to the Lord, and every tongue shall confess Him. Ezekiel 37:7-8; Isaiah 45:24 And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched; Isaiah 66:24 and then shall they repent, when it profits them not. And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind, that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or of lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, have You made us to err from Your way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame."



Was Justin Matryr a church father? I don't know...have never been directed to him at all, but by you. Was Justin Martyr born in 100 AD? Don't really know that either. If he was, indeed...why would he be speaking in future anticipation of something that you say took place a mere 30 years before his birth? How could one nearer to the coming of Jesus Christ...if in 70 AD, than I am now to the Kennedy assassination...be so remarkably ignorant...or wrong about it...and be a church father?
I am not here to indict Justin Martyr, God forbid, nor to endorse him. But it would surely seem that if one would like to "use" him for endorsement of one thing, but be uncannily ignorant of his position in another held by a "dealer"...I would say..."keep the cards coming from the top of the deck only..." 

You been seen, and warned.

If this seems heavy handed, consider the grace that has not even touched upon his teaching of eternal judgment.


Do you still want to quote him to anyone to teach them a thing or two?


----------



## hobbs27

Israel said:


> And, you, of course...would be the "better" student?
> I think I hear the school bell...do you?
> When you resorted to endorsing a view by quoting Justin Martyr recently, and doubled down on his being " a very influential church father" as though to further endorse his being "in your corner"...how could you neglect this? In the same place you quoted from Chapter 43 is found this, in chapter 52:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Justin Matryr a church father? I don't know...have never been directed to him at all, but by you. Was Justin Martyr born in 100 AD? Don't really know that either. If he was, indeed...why would he be speaking in future anticipation of something that you say took place a mere 30 years before his birth? How could one nearer to the coming of Jesus Christ...if in 70 AD, than I am now to the Kennedy assassination...be so remarkably ignorant...or wrong about it...and be a church father?
> I am not here to indict Justin Martyr, God forbid, nor to endorse him. But it would surely seem that if one would like to "use" him for endorsement of one thing, but be uncannily ignorant of his position in another held by a "dealer"...I would say..."keep the cards coming from the top of the deck only..."
> 
> You been seen, and warned.
> 
> If this seems heavy handed, consider the grace that has not even touched upon his teaching of eternal judgment.
> 
> 
> Do you still want to quote him to anyone to teach them a thing or two?





 In response to another post about Arminius being the founder of ( freewill)  I felt it necessary to show how Justin Martyr also disagreed with predestination. Over a 1,000 years before Arminius... I hold no stock in so-called church fathers, but base everything on scripture alone and regard scripture as God Breathed. If you had persued the point further, you would have seen that fact.

As for  your warning, I yawn at.


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> As for  your warning, I yawn at.


Even a yawn denies freewill.


----------



## RH Clark

WaltL1 said:


> I never claimed to be more knowledgeable than you on any subject.
> Your response to StripeRR statement about God must want people to be evil or or evil people or however he phrased it was "is there any other kind"?
> Is it a coincidence that your religion, which by the way is not an insult as i assume you call yourself a Christian which makes Christianity your religion,  subscribes to that same belief?
> If it is coincidence then I apologize and ask you where in your studies did you come up with that there are no other kind of people than evil ones?



I'm pretty sure you have me mixed up with someone else. I don't remember ever calling people evil or any "are there any other kind" statement.

I do believe all people need salvation, but I don't call people evil. I suppose I would have to say that we are all evil compared to God, but one individual may be a saint compared to another individual. We all need salvation because no matter how good and moral a person is, without grace, it couldn't be good enough. It's about trusting in God rather than in your own morals.


----------



## WaltL1

RH Clark said:


> I'm pretty sure you have me mixed up with someone else. I don't remember ever calling people evil or any "are there any other kind" statement.
> 
> I do believe all people need salvation, but I don't call people evil. I suppose I would have to say that we are all evil compared to God, but one individual may be a saint compared to another individual. We all need salvation because no matter how good and moral a person is, without grace, it couldn't be good enough. It's about trusting in God rather than in your own morals.


Yes I did mix you up. I should have learned by now not to try to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Sorry about that.


----------



## RH Clark

WaltL1 said:


> Yes I did mix you up. I should have learned by now not to try to walk and chew gum at the same time.
> Sorry about that.



Not a problem. It's not like I've never done anything like that.


----------



## Israel

The web is a peculiar thing...the harder one tries of himself to extricate himself, the tighter he is bound.
It is not that men do not know they are trapped, and taken as a prey, but without a revelation (given...for a man can receive nothing except it be given him from above) that something/someone might come to him, yes, to him at that time (that hope seems absurd and fruitless, but he has it, nevertheless) _before the spider_ he knows he is rightly lost.
Thief on right, thief on left. But, both thieves, both snared.
One went down in bitterness of soul, one went up just because he saw something he could not vilify. And the thing he saw, that he could not deny, was something that made it remarkably easy for him to tell the truth on himself. Irresistible, even.
And Jesus...knows truth, when he hears it.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Who is dancing?


 It was a simple question...I thought.


> Did I ever suggest Hitler "did right"?


 You seemed to suggest Hitler and a glutton were on equal ground.


> But really, more to the point, do you imagine Hitler ever awoke any morning thinking "I am the most evil and malevolent thing since Vlad the Impaler."


 I am sure he had an idea he was pretty evil. Or, he was bat-excrement crazy...or both. Not sure why that is 'more' to the point.


----------



## RH Clark

I'm sure Hitler was able to justify the wrong he did as less than others in his mind, the same way we all do. I don't think all wrongs are equal, but all wrongs are worthy of he11 without grace.


----------



## 660griz

RH Clark said:


> but all wrongs are worthy of he11 without grace.



So, there is a he11? The disagreement among Christians sure makes debate a lot tougher.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> The web is a peculiar thing...the harder one tries of himself to extricate himself, the tighter he is bound.
> It is not that men do not know they are trapped, and taken as a prey, but without a revelation (given...for a man can receive nothing except it be given him from above) that something/someone might come to him, yes, to him at that time (that hope seems absurd and fruitless, but he has it, nevertheless) _before the spider_ he knows he is rightly lost.
> Thief on right, thief on left. But, both thieves, both snared.
> One went down in bitterness of soul, one went up just because he saw something he could not vilify. And the thing he saw, that he could not deny, was something that made it remarkably easy for him to tell the truth on himself. Irresistible, even.
> And Jesus...knows truth, when he hears it.



How do you know that it's from "above" and not from your imagination?


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> To me it's not about thinking of unsaved people as evil.



You might be underestimating the depravity of man.
Without grace,as viewed through God's eyes,man is without any goodness,period.

Gen.6:5

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually....

8 BUT NOAH FOUND GRACE IN THE EYES OF THE LORD.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> You might be underestimating the depravity of man.
> Without grace,as viewed through God's eyes,man is without any goodness,period.
> 
> Gen.6:5
> 
> 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually....
> 
> 8 BUT NOAH FOUND GRACE IN THE EYES OF THE LORD.



Now you're saying that even though I don't believe that God is still working through me to make anything good I do possible? 

Jeez.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> You might be underestimating the depravity of man.
> Without grace,as viewed through God's eyes,man is without any goodness,period.
> 
> Gen.6:5
> 
> 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually....
> 
> 8 BUT NOAH FOUND GRACE IN THE EYES OF THE LORD.




I understand what you are saying. I agree that we are all lost without grace. I just don't think the proper mindset for a Christian is that I am now by grace justified and perfect in God's eyes, but everyone lost is evil. 

The world views the word evil as much worse than the normal standard human behavior. As Christians we know that the entire world, normal human behavior, is evil and lost without God, but a non Christian won't use the word evil in the same way or even understand the concept. All the non Christian will see is a puffed up person calling him evil when he sees himself as just as good and decent of a person as the Christian. He will see the Christian as  the evil one because he has elevated himself to view others with contempt. 

A Christian is to love even the lost person, maybe especially the lost person. Viewing them as evil and worthy of he11 won't win any converts and will put the Christian in the wrong mindset to be an effective witness for Christ.

The Christian should always remember that he is no better than any other, and it's only the Grace of God that sets him apart, but then I don't subscribe to the notion that some are simply chosen above all the rest for salvation. I think that is one of the great fallacies of most predestination salvation thinkers. The ego of man will eventually lead them to believe that there is something special about themselves that caused God to choose them for Heaven and another for He11. They may say they rely on grace, but man's pride and ego is a very strong force.


----------



## hobbs27

(The Christian should always remember that he is no better than any other, and it's only the Grace of God that sets him apart, )

 Amen!


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> (The Christian should always remember that he is no better than any other, and it's only the Grace of God that sets him apart, )
> 
> Amen!


Sets him apart to be better than, worse than or the same as the non-Christian?


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> (The Christian should always remember that he is no better than any other, and it's only the Grace of God that sets him apart, )
> 
> Amen!



That's exactly what I'm saying.
It's ALL of His grace.Nothing else.


----------



## WaltL1

RH Clark said:


> I understand what you are saying. I agree that we are all lost without grace. I just don't think the proper mindset for a Christian is that I am now by grace justified and perfect in God's eyes, but everyone lost is evil.
> 
> The world views the word evil as much worse than the normal standard human behavior. As Christians we know that the entire world, normal human behavior, is evil and lost without God, but a non Christian won't use the word evil in the same way or even understand the concept. All the non Christian will see is a puffed up person calling him evil when he sees himself as just as good and decent of a person as the Christian. He will see the Christian as  the evil one because he has elevated himself to view others with contempt.
> 
> A Christian is to love even the lost person, maybe especially the lost person. Viewing them as evil and worthy of he11 won't win any converts and will put the Christian in the wrong mindset to be an effective witness for Christ.
> 
> The Christian should always remember that he is no better than any other, and it's only the Grace of God that sets him apart, but then I don't subscribe to the notion that some are simply chosen above all the rest for salvation. I think that is one of the great fallacies of most predestination salvation thinkers. The ego of man will eventually lead them to believe that there is something special about themselves that caused God to choose them for Heaven and another for He11. They may say they rely on grace, but man's pride and ego is a very strong force.


It's also worth noting that the word evil is a man made word. And that word has a definition. You (christians) seem to have given it your own definition. So it's not that "we" see it differently it's that Christians seem to expect "your" definition to replace the actual definition. 
We run into the same thing with the word faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> It's also worth noting that the word evil is a man made word. And that word has a definition. You (christians) seem to have given it your own definition. So it's not that "we" see it differently it's that Christians seem to expect "your" definition to replace the actual definition.
> We run into the same thing with the word faith.



And marriage.


----------



## ambush80

I've read on here where some Christians have said that even acts which are "good" are unrighteous when not done by a believer.  Basically, if it's not done under the auspices of Christianity then it's in essence still evil.  

If I give money to the poor as a non-believer my act is still an act of the Devil. But here's the weird part, acts of the Devil still fall under the sovereignty of God and are therefore righteous.  What a mind job....


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> I've read on here where some Christians have said that even acts which are "good" are unrighteous when not done by a believer.  Basically, if it's not done under the auspices of Christianity then it's in essence still evil.
> 
> If I give money to the poor as a non-believer my act is still an act of the Devil. But here's the weird part, acts of the Devil still fall under the sovereignty of God and are therefore righteous.  What a mind job....



Faith is the key here.Anything done without faith is sin in God's eyes.
He is the giver of that faith.

"Without faith it is impossible to please God."


----------



## hobbs27

gemcgrew said:


> Sets him apart to be better than, worse than or the same as the non-Christian?



None of the above. Sets him apart from an orphan to a child of God.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And marriage.


Yes great example.
Which is all well and good.
But if you want to separate yourself from the "world" including language well then don't cry when the world separates you from schools, laws ......


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Faith is the key here.Anything done without faith is sin in God's eyes.
> He is the giver of that faith.
> 
> "Without faith it is impossible to please God."



Are the acts of the Devil righteous?


----------



## welderguy

Atheists and even some Christians are very good at pointing out all the rottenness in the world and hypocracy,which I agree with.But then,when it comes to showing the contrast of the grace of God,they want to act as if it's non-existent.

The black velvet is clearly seen,but we need to see the glory of the Diamond.


----------



## welderguy

ambush80 said:


> Are the acts of the Devil righteous?



Does the devil have faith?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Does the devil have faith?



Faith in God, absolutely. It was the sin of not bowing to humans that got him excommunicated, if I'm remembering my lore right.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Faith in God, absolutely. It was the sin of not bowing to humans that got him excommunicated, if I'm remembering my lore right.



"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"

The devil does not have this grace or faith.He will spend eternity in he11.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"
> 
> The devil does not have this grace or faith.He will spend eternity in CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored.



How do you know, other than he's spending eternity in Hades? 

Is it possible that God's grace is still in him, but his inability to repent for the sin of not bowing is blocking it? 

And I thought you said it wasn't possible for a human to speak _for_ God.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> How do you know, other than he's spending eternity in Hades?
> 
> Is it possible that God's grace is still in him, but his inability to repent for the sin of not bowing is blocking it?
> 
> And I thought you said it wasn't possible for a human to speak _for_ God.



God's grace can not be blocked.In fact,it's His grace which enables us and causes us to repent.

And I never said it's impossible for man to speak for God.(ie. the prophets)


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Atheists and even some Christians are very good at pointing out all the rottenness in the world and hypocracy,which I agree with.But then,when it comes to showing the contrast of the grace of God,they want to act as if it's non-existent.
> 
> The black velvet is clearly seen,but we need to see the glory of the Diamond.


It's interesting that seeing "both sides of the coin" makes perfect sense to you in this case and you even advocate it.
But when we are talking about evil all of a sudden it doesn't make sense anymore and the coin has only one side.
Very selective reasoning.


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> None of the above. Sets him apart from an orphan to a child of God.




Is being a "child of God" better than, worse than or the same as being an "orphan"?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> It's interesting that seeing "both sides of the coin" makes perfect sense to you in this case and you even advocate it.
> But when we are talking about evil all of a sudden it doesn't make sense anymore and the coin has only one side.
> Very selective reasoning.



I want everyone to see and understand how rotten man is and how awesome God is.

"He must increase,and I must decrease."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> God's grace can not be blocked.In fact,it's His grace which enables us and causes us to repent.
> 
> And I never said it's impossible for man to speak for God.(ie. the prophets)



So why hasn't da debil? 

Sorry, I was going off memory, I must have a crossed wire somewhere then.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> I want everyone to see and understand how rotten man is and how awesome God is.
> 
> "He must increase,and I must decrease."


Worthy cause.
The contradictions achieve the opposite.


----------



## hobbs27

gemcgrew said:


> Is being a "child of God" better than, worse than or the same as being an "orphan"?



That is a different question. 

I suppose some men not of faith have done more good than I, making them a better person?


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So why hasn't da debil?
> 
> Sorry, I was going off memory, I must have a crossed wire somewhere then.



Are you asking why hasn't the devil repented?
Because he's cursed,same as everyone who has not been given grace through faith.

Did you know that there are elect angels and non-elect ones?


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Worthy cause.
> The contradictions achieve the opposite.



Are you saying I've tried to "increase" myself?
I agree with you.I'm guilty as charged.I'm rotten.

My hope is this:
"Where sin did abound,grace did much more abound."


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Are you saying I've tried to "increase" myself?
> I agree with you.I'm guilty as charged.I'm rotten.
> 
> My hope is this:
> "Where sin did abound,grace did much more abound."



You'll have to explain what you mean by "increase".


----------



## 660griz

welderguy said:


> Faith is the key here.Anything done without faith is sin in God's eyes.
> He is the giver of that faith.
> 
> "Without faith it is impossible to please God."



Do you really believe your God is that insecure?

Oh wait, he was created in Man's image. Got it.


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> I've read on here where some Christians have said that even acts which are "good" are unrighteous when not done by a believer.  Basically, if it's not done under the auspices of Christianity then it's in essence still evil.
> 
> If I give money to the poor as a non-believer my act is still an act of the Devil. But here's the weird part, acts of the Devil still fall under the sovereignty of God and are therefore righteous.  What a mind job....



I wouldn't think that way at all. Not all Christians think the same.LOL  There was a man in Acts named Cornelius that did good things like giving to the poor. The Lord sent an angel to him telling him to send for Peter who told him about Jesus so that he could be saved. His good deeds were not of Satan.

Neither do I believe that God uses Satan to do his dirty work. God simply gave the earth to man and man too often follows after Satan reaping the harvest of his bad choices.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> I wouldn't think that way at all. Not all Christians think the same.LOL



RH,
Do you believe we are justified by faith and not of works?

If so,do you think someone without faith can do anything to please God?


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> RH,
> Do you believe we are justified by faith and not of works?
> 
> If so,do you think someone without faith can do anything to please God?



Yes, I believe we are justified by faith and not works.

As to your second question, it depends on what you call faith. Cornelius in the example I used feared God and gave alms to the poor. Some would say he didn't have faith because he wasn't saved yet, but he evidently pleased God because God sent an angel to show him how to get saved.

The scripture says without faith it's impossible to please God. People take that different ways. One poster recently asked if God was that insecure. He obviously took the scripture differently than I do, seeing it as something God required for himself.

When I read that scripture I think I could also say that it would be impossible to please my wife without faith. How could you be pleasing to anyone if you didn't believe anything they said or even acknowledge that they exist?

Another aspect is that without faith you will never lead a completely victorious life. God wants his children to prosper in every area of life, so when they don't God is not pleased. 

To answer your question, I do believe that without faith it's impossible to please God but I look at faith as complete trust in God. That faith pleases him because he wants me to trust him so that I can prosper and accomplish all the good things in my life that God wants for me.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> Yes, I believe we are justified by faith and not works.
> 
> As to your second question, it depends on what you call faith. Cornelius in the example I used feared God and gave alms to the poor. Some would say he didn't have faith because he wasn't saved yet, but he evidently pleased God because God sent an angel to show him how to get saved.
> 
> The scripture says without faith it's impossible to please God. People take that different ways. One poster recently asked if God was that insecure. He obviously took the scripture differently than I do, seeing it as something God required for himself.
> 
> When I read that scripture I think I could also say that it would be impossible to please my wife without faith. How could you be pleasing to anyone if you didn't believe anything they said or even acknowledge that they exist?
> 
> Another aspect is that without faith you will never lead a completely victorious life. God wants his children to prosper in every area of life, so when they don't God is not pleased.
> 
> To answer your question, I do believe that without faith it's impossible to please God but I look at faith as complete trust in God. That faith pleases him because he wants me to trust him so that I can prosper and accomplish all the good things in my life that God wants for me.



I believe Cornelius was already born again before Peter showed up,and that God had already given him faith.

So do you believe faith is something that is given to a person by God as a gift,or can anyone just have faith on their own?


----------



## ambush80

It just confounds me that grown ups are talking about angels.


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> I believe Cornelius was already born again before Peter showed up,and that God had already given him faith.
> 
> So do you believe faith is something that is given to a person by God as a gift,or can anyone just have faith on their own?



I believe all people have a natural kind of faith, you have to or else you would never drive a car or ride in an airplane, or even get out of the house for that matter. I also believe that when a man opens his heart to God then the Holy Spirit works in him granting him a Godly kind of faith.


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> I believe all people have a natural kind of faith, you have to or else you would never drive a car or ride in an airplane, or even get out of the house for that matter. I also believe that when a man opens his heart to God then the Holy Spirit works in him granting him a Godly kind of faith.



This is confidence based on empirical evidence.  I have heard believers of all religions say "God has never let me down" (like a rock always falls down) and yet they're elusive as to the details of their evidence.  RH, tell me you're evidence.  Show me that it's like a rock that always falls down.


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> This is confidence based on empirical evidence.  I have heard believers of all religions say "God has never let me down" (like a rock always falls down) and yet they're elusive as to the details of their evidence.  RH, tell me you're evidence.  Show me that it's like a rock that always falls down.



Are you asking what my evidence of God is?


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> Are you asking what my evidence of God is?




More specifically, what is your evidence of God like this:
_
I believe all people have a natural kind of faith, you have to or else you would never drive a car or ride in an airplane, or even get out of the house for that matter.
_

And while we're chatting, can you answer this?

_RH Clark,

If God makes a ball and He makes gravity and He makes a man that He knows will push the ball down a hill, did God make the ball roll down the hill?

"He made the man that He knew would push the ball."

I can't make it any clearer than that._


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> More specifically, what is your evidence of God like this:
> _
> I believe all people have a natural kind of faith, you have to or else you would never drive a car or ride in an airplane, or even get out of the house for that matter.
> _
> 
> And while we're chatting, can you answer this?
> 
> _RH Clark,
> 
> If God makes a ball and He makes gravity and He makes a man that He knows will push the ball down a hill, did God make the ball roll down the hill?
> 
> "He made the man that He knew would push the ball."
> 
> I can't make it any clearer than that._




Ok, I'll answer you the best I can.


ambush80 said:


> More specifically, what is your evidence of God like this:
> _
> I believe all people have a natural kind of faith, you have to or else you would never drive a car or ride in an airplane, or even get out of the house for that matter.
> _
> 
> The natural faith I'm talking about has nothing at all to do with God. It's just a trust that things will work like they should. I do believe that it takes a different kind of faith to be saved. I believe it's a gift of God that comes when a person seeks for God, just as God said.
> Matthew 7:7King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
> 
> 
> 
> If God makes a ball and He makes gravity and He makes a man that He knows will push the ball down a hill, did God make the ball roll down the hill?
> 
> "He made the man that He knew would push the ball."
> 
> I can't make it any clearer than that.[/I]


 

What you are asking here is basically, is God responsible for what man does, since he made man and should have known what man would do? 
I honestly don't know if God knows everything a man will do all his life and every choice he will make. He might but I'm not certain. It would explain some things in scripture but they could also be explained in other ways.

If my children do wrong, am I responsible for that wrong? It's actually a valid question because wasn't I responsible for teaching them right from wrong? On the other hand they have free will to act as they choose.

I see God as the ultimate father because even when his children did wrong he took the responsibility on himself and paid the price for that wrong.

So in conclusion you can blame God if you want for what men do and his answer could be that he took responsibility for it and paid for it, or you can choose to believe that man made his own decisions based on free will and God paid for those bad decisions simply out of his love and grace toward man.



The answer to your first question wound up inside the second quote, sorry.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> I believe all people have a natural kind of faith, you have to or else you would never drive a car or ride in an airplane, or even get out of the house for that matter. I also believe that when a man opens his heart to God then the Holy Spirit works in him granting him a Godly kind of faith.



When I read Ezekial 36:26-27,I don't find where God has to wait for someone to "open their heart" to Him.

"26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."


----------



## RH Clark

welderguy said:


> When I read Ezekial 36:26-27,I don't find where God has to wait for someone to "open their heart" to Him.
> 
> "26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
> 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."



I don't see the verse there where God will put that new heart in against your will either.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> I don't see the verse there where God will put that new heart in against your will either.



Of course not.But we are passive in it,not active.


----------



## Artfuldodger

welderguy said:


> RH,
> Do you believe we are justified by faith and not of works?
> 
> If so,do you think someone without faith can do anything to please God?



Romans 1:21
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.


This group in Romans? Without faith yet they were expected, by God, to please him. Like Cornelius, do you feel God had given them something to make them glorify him and  give him thanks? If not then why did God expect them to glorify him? Why were their foolish hearts darkened? Why did they exchange the truth for a lie if they never had privy to the truth?
It appears this group had some knowledge to give them responsibility.


----------



## Artfuldodger

What bit of responsibility does a totally depraved person have? Does he have enough knowledge from a  general revelation or does it take a special revelation to to gain enough revelation to gain responsibility?

What gives man the responsibility to worship God? What gives man the responsibility to love others?

Why would God give a man a "general revelation" but never enough knowledge & faith for a "special revelation?"

I can't comprehend that. Wave the carrot in front of a man but never allow him to catch it. Punish him for the knowledge he gains in a general revelation but never giving him the faith needed to accept a special revelation?


----------



## bullethead

welderguy said:


> He made us.But He did not MAKE us sin.In fact He gave clear instructions of what was permissible and what was forbidden.Did He not?
> 
> You sound like those that want to sue gun manufacturers for making the gun that murdered someone.


Why did he wait until only 6,000 years ago to give those instructions?


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> It was a simple question...I thought.
> You seemed to suggest Hitler and a glutton were on equal ground.
> I am sure he had an idea he was pretty evil. Or, he was bat-excrement crazy...or both. Not sure why that is 'more' to the point.


Before God, Hitler and the glutton are on precisely the same ground.

You say, "I am sure he had an idea he was pretty evil"
Really?

Perhaps I could share something I have seen that unfolded over many years. And I believe, even if not afforded your interest...you still might be surprised to see something.
I really don't believe Hitler to be the archetype of evil, but I do believe him to be man.


----------



## RH Clark

bullethead said:


> Why did he wait until only 6,000 years ago to give those instructions?



It seems to me that God has always given instructions. He gave instruction to Adam, and in Gen.4 Cain was angry because God didn't accept his offering. God told him that if he did right he would be accepted, and if he didn't then it was the fault of sin which he should resist.


----------



## welderguy

RH Clark said:


> It seems to me that God has always given instructions. He gave instruction to Adam, and in Gen.4 Cain was angry because God didn't accept his offering. God told him that if he did right he would be accepted, and if he didn't then it was the fault of sin which he should resist.



Abel was able to please God because of the faith that God had given him.Cain did not have that faith.

Hebrews 11:4 explains:

" By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."

The faith is what made the sacrifice excellent to God.It's the same with us.We can not please Him without faith."Faith is the gift of God."
"Not all men have faith."


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Abel was able to please God because of the faith that God had given him.Cain did not have that faith.
> 
> Hebrews 11:4 explains:
> 
> " By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."
> 
> The faith is what made the sacrifice excellent to God.It's the same with us.We can not please Him without faith."Faith is the gift of God."
> "Not all men have faith."


This stuff really makes your God look strange.
Abell didn't please God, God pleased himself.
It's no different than me giving you $10 with the expectation that you give it back. Then when you do I reward you. To top it off I then punish someone else because they didn't give me $10 because I didn't give it them.
It's just nuts.
The dudes who wrote this nonsense didn't do your god any favors.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> This stuff really makes your God look strange.
> Abell didn't please God, God pleased himself.
> It's no different than me giving you $10 with the expectation that you give it back. Then when you do I reward you. To top it off I then punish someone else because they didn't give me $10 because I didn't give it them.
> It's just nuts.
> The dudes who wrote this nonsense didn't do your god any favors.



You missed it again.
It's all about grace.(unmerited favor)
And the purpose of that grace is the glorifying of the One who gives it.

It's not about us.It's ALL about Him.He is worthy,whether you ever see that in this life or not.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> You missed it again.
> It's all about grace.(unmerited favor)
> And the purpose of that grace is the glorifying of the One who gives it.
> 
> It's not about us.It's ALL about Him.He is worthy,whether you ever see that in this life or not.


You are under the impression that what you tell yourself to ignore what is right in front you somehow makes it go away.
Scroll up its still there.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> This stuff really makes your God look strange.
> Abell didn't please God, God pleased himself.
> It's no different than me giving you $10 with the expectation that you give it back. Then when you do I reward you. To top it off I then punish someone else because they didn't give me $10 because I didn't give it them.
> It's just nuts.
> The dudes who wrote this nonsense didn't do your god any favors.


But there is a difference. You didn't create the "someone else" for that very purpose.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> But there is a difference. You didn't create the "someone else" for that very purpose.


Nor would i.
I don't find the creation of innocent victims to satisfy my own pathological needs to be a positive personality trait.
Your mileage may vary.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Nor would i.
> I don't find the creation of innocent victims to satisfy my own pathological needs to be a positive personality trait.
> Your mileage may vary.



If you were suddenly made aware of grace on your personal behalf,you would have a different view altogether.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> Nor would i.
> I don't find the creation of innocent victims to satisfy my own pathological needs to be a positive personality trait.
> Your mileage may vary.


Nor can you.


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> Ok, I'll answer you the best I can.
> 
> What you are asking here is basically, is God responsible for what man does, since he made man and should have known what man would do?
> I honestly don't know if God knows everything a man will do all his life and every choice he will make. He might but I'm not certain. It would explain some things in scripture but they could also be explained in other ways.



You can call this "RH Special Omnipotence/Omniscience".




RH Clark said:


> If my children do wrong, am I responsible for that wrong? It's actually a valid question because wasn't I responsible for teaching them right from wrong? On the other hand they have free will to act as they choose.



Yes.  A parent can and should be held responsible for things that their children do. If I leave my 7 year old at home alone and she burns down my house and it catches my neighbor's house on fire I will be charged.

If a father does wrong, should his children be responsible for it?  



RH Clark said:


> I see God as the ultimate father because even when his children did wrong he took the responsibility on himself and paid the price for that wrong.
> 
> So in conclusion you can blame God if you want for what men do and his answer could be that he took responsibility for it and paid for it, or you can choose to believe that man made his own decisions based on free will and God paid for those bad decisions simply out of his love and grace toward man.



Truly paying the price would be going to He11 for my sins forever, not just hanging on a cross for a couple of days.  What does a couple of days torture mean to an infinite being?  I could do that.  But no, he saves the _good_ torture for His children.




RH Clark said:


> The answer to your first question wound up inside the second quote, sorry.  The natural faith I'm talking about has nothing at all to do with God. It's just a trust that things will work like they should. _I do believe that it takes a different kind of faith to be saved._ I believe it's a gift of God that comes when a person seeks for God, just as God said.
> Matthew 7:7King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:



Describe it to me with an emphasis on why you know it's real.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> Nor can you.



I could procreate a child to be used specifically for torture.  See how sick that sounds?


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> If you were suddenly made aware of grace on your personal behalf,you would have a different view altogether.


Maybe you don't have a problem with there being innocent victims just so you can feel special but don't lay that crap at my feet.


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Nor can you.


I'm rubber you're glue everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I could procreate a child to be used specifically for torture.  See how sick that sounds?


See Welder's response #654.
Apparently not sick to everybody.


----------



## welderguy

WaltL1 said:


> Maybe you don't have a problem with there being innocent victims just so you can feel special but don't lay that crap at my feet.



Keyword-UNMERITED favor

The reason you don't get it is you think you merit something.
That you as the created are entitled to something from the creator.You are not.


----------



## ambush80

welderguy said:


> Keyword-UNMERITED favor
> 
> The reason you don't get it is you think you merit something.
> That you as the created are entitled to something from the creator.You are not.



That's just the version of a creator that those ignorant, misogynistic, superstitious, war like writers of the Bible came up with.  We, you and I, could write a better creator than the one described in the Bible in 20 minutes--one that would reflect what we as a civilization have grown to value.


----------



## WaltL1

welderguy said:


> Keyword-UNMERITED favor
> 
> The reason you don't get it is you think you merit something.
> That you as the created are entitled to something from the creator.You are not.



Each one of your posts is getting more ignorant than the last.
Take a break and regroup.


----------



## bullethead

RH Clark said:


> It seems to me that God has always given instructions. He gave instruction to Adam, and in Gen.4 Cain was angry because God didn't accept his offering. God told him that if he did right he would be accepted, and if he didn't then it was the fault of sin which he should resist.


We know there were people of earth long before Adam. You are caught up in the bible stories which, depending on your escape, is either scripture and the precise word of God or metaphors. Why did god wait to tell such a small group of people his instructions? Why did it take him 1200+years to write his instructions? Why didn't he 10,000, 50,000, 200,000 years earlier when there were humans? Why is the bible wrong about the first humans?


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Why is the bible wrong about the first humans?



The Bible is not wrong. Modern man's understanding is wrong. I agree with you and the Bible, Adam was not the first human.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> The Bible is not wrong. Modern man's understanding is wrong. I agree with you and the Bible, Adam was not the first human.


Is your understanding that God created Adam from dust and the whole rest of the story is true, but God did it long after many humans had already inhabited the earth?


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Is your understanding that God created Adam from dust and the whole rest of the story is true, but God did it long after many humans had already inhabited the earth?



The entire story is true, but it's not what it appears. Its highly symbolic language, much like Daniel, Song of Solomon, and Revelation.

Adam was the first man brought into Covenant with God, although many humans existed in the world at that time.

http://biologos.org/resources/videos/john-walton-on-understanding-genesis


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> The entire story is true, but it's not what it appears. Its highly symbolic language, much like Daniel, Song of Solomon, and Revelation.
> 
> Adam was the first man brought into Covenant with God, although many humans existed in the world at that time.
> 
> http://biologos.org/resources/videos/john-walton-on-understanding-genesis


The link is some quality apologetics. The explanations are much better than most.
Not sure though if it is anything more than the author making a good case in order for it to make sense to himself because he doubts what he has been taught all these years.

Good explanation, but nothing concrete.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> The entire story is true, but it's not what it appears. Its highly symbolic language, much like Daniel, Song of Solomon, and Revelation.
> 
> Adam was the first man brought into Covenant with God, although many humans existed in the world at that time.
> 
> http://biologos.org/resources/videos/john-walton-on-understanding-genesis



Where does the misunderstanding stop and accuracy begin?
Ie: We may have the understanding of the whole book wrong.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Where does the misunderstanding stop and accuracy begin?
> Ie: We may have the understanding of the whole book wrong.



I think the plan of salvation is so simple that many wrong understandings will still bring man in Covenant with God.

Now is an exciting time in Christian studies. With the help of the internet , and more Churches that don't crack a whip to keep members in line with their denominational laws, we are getting back the original understanding.


----------



## Big7

No such thing as Predestination. 

God gave you a brain, free will and His Word.
The rest is up to you.


----------



## gemcgrew

ambush80 said:


> I could procreate a child to be used specifically for torture.  See how sick that sounds?


I see irrelevance.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> I think the plan of salvation is so simple that many wrong understandings will still bring man in Covenant with God.
> 
> Now is an exciting time in Christian studies. With the help of the internet , and more Churches that don't crack a whip to keep members in line with their denominational laws, we are getting back the original understanding.



Wouldn't a god choose men to write his book that are able to transcend cultures and times with their writings?
Wouldn't a god make sure nothing was misunderstood?
Why wouldn't a god do simple writing for himself?


I agree that the modern understanding may not be what was intended by the writers. I agree that there are barriers due to an ancient culture and time in history that we cannot relate to.
 I feel that the sheer time it took to write those stories and the work done by anonymous men are evidence of those misunderstandings. 
For those reasons ,
I am convinced that no God was or is involved at all and these new "understandings" are nothing more than modern attempts to make excuses for the same non existent god that was construed thousands of years ago.


----------



## Artfuldodger

"So people are without excuse."

Responsibility within predestination?

People not given the faith to worship yet still without excuse.


----------



## Israel

Artfuldodger said:


> "So people are without excuse."
> 
> Responsibility within predestination?
> 
> People not given the faith to worship yet still without excuse.



Paul responded to this.

One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?

Please consider this. To say the above already presumes the knowledge that one has been "made thus". And, even (in perhaps despite) acknowledgement of God is made.
Never discount the invitation only that which is of faith can receive "Come let us reason together".
The "thing" perceives fault being found. The thing very much does not like it. So much so that it does not like at all being the thing in which fault is found. It does not want to "be itself"...and blames its maker. It may even protest from its fault convicted state (as it cannot possibly know any other perspective...yet) all is fault ...and, therefore _ of fault_.

Do we not find this very thing also marked on Paul's trail?

"But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid."

What soul, in seeking to be reconciled with Christ, in all things...has not found a resistance? A place of contention? Do we imagine Paul's words came from some sort of divine automatic writing, or, are they really (as I receive them) out of the divine fire of Christ's indwelling a man, still smoking off the page? This does not in any way (for me) diminish what we call "divine inspiration"...in truth, it is precisely what informs it...Paul is the living epistle...and because he is either found true to the true, or false to the false...(as so many others are, have been, and God willing...will be)...it is the trueness burned into a man...that makes his words true...and of God. (Not because someone hands you a Bible and says "My denomination says the Bible is the word of God and you should believe it") Which is not often so far from what may often take place. 
Conviction of truth is the most powerful thing in creation...it changes it completely.

(But, that is _my aside_)

Now, in all this, a man may come to a curious understanding of what is happening. The secret of it is found in our Lord's words. "The one who is forgiven little loves little. The one who is forgiven much, the same, loves much"

I find no comfort in having all my sin exposed, I don't imagine anyone does. I don't like being found "so faulty"...and faults of such magnitude and depth as it is now less wonder why in grace they have been kept to be found at a time when grace was sufficiently apprehended that I not die at their sight. But, in all, there has been this one thing of which a man "like me" has been made acutely aware among men...and surely in the presence of God...and that is "am I able to love...at all?" For I am always convicted that is the signal failing if not apprehended, the sole consumption of soul I find at every turn when facing the Messiah. "But, do I love you?" 
For this...a man may have to come to appreciate the depth to which he has been forgiven...not in theory or concept...but by seeing a grace ministered in real "time" as the depth of that which to also he descended, and embraced in defiance...is made manifest.
"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?"
No, it is enough to see the pit from which we have been dug.


----------



## RH Clark

Big7 said:


> No such thing as Predestination.
> 
> God gave you a brain, free will and His Word.
> The rest is up to you.



Glad to see another who doesn't buy into that theology. I was beginning to think I was badly outnumbered.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Wouldn't a god choose men to write his book that are able to transcend cultures and times with their writings?
> Wouldn't a god make sure nothing was misunderstood?
> Why wouldn't a god do simple writing for himself?
> 
> 
> I agree that the modern understanding may not be what was intended by the writers. I agree that there are barriers due to an ancient culture and time in history that we cannot relate to.
> I feel that the sheer time it took to write those stories and the work done by anonymous men are evidence of those misunderstandings.
> For those reasons ,
> I am convinced that no God was or is involved at all and these new "understandings" are nothing more than modern attempts to make excuses for the same non existent god that was construed thousands of years ago.


One would be correct to understand the nature of God is not changing.
And one would be correct to see the nature of man has not changed in his assumption that "he is smarter, now".


----------



## welderguy

Big7 said:


> No such thing as Predestination.



God's children are predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.(Rom.8:29)



Big7 said:


> God gave you a brain, free will and His Word.
> The rest is up to you.



Philippians 2:13
" For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

He does this^^^...

So we can do this vvv:..

Phil.2:12
"work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> One would be correct to understand the nature of God is not changing.
> And one would be correct to see the nature of man has not changed in his assumption that "he is smarter, now".


Nobody can ever know the nature of a god by the definition of a god, and there is absolutely no way to know anything about the non existent. 
There is certainly at least one man that is proof that not all men are smarter now.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Nobody can ever know the nature of a god by the definition of a god, and there is absolutely no way to know anything about the non existent.
> There is certainly at least one man that is proof that not all men are smarter now.



yes.


----------



## ambush80

gemcgrew said:


> I see irrelevance.



I get it.

"religious practices have been binding our ancestors into groups for tens of thousands of years. That binding usually involves some blinding--once any person, book or principle is declared sacred, then devotees can no longer question it or think clearly about it."

--Jonathan Haidt

Humans can't apply the same use of the words cruelty, justice, barbarism, sociopathic to God.  He gets His own set of definitions.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God choosing isn't based on works, why are so quick to choose our friends, etc. based on works?
Shouldn't we be more like God and just randomly choose people?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> If God choosing isn't based on works, why are so quick to choose our friends, etc. based on works?
> Shouldn't we be more like God and just randomly choose people?



Scriptural support required.
Or is this an assumption from lack of knowledge.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Before God, Hitler and the glutton are on precisely the same ground.


 This is precisely where myself and your God would have words. 



> You say, "I am sure he had an idea he was pretty evil"
> Really?


 Yes. Really. Psychoanalyzing Hitler was pretty popular. I believe the general consensus was that he had some mental issues but, not enough to be diagnosed as 'crazy'. Therefore, he knew right from wrong. 




> I really don't believe Hitler to be the archetype of evil, but I do believe him to be man.



I believe him to be both. You should also believe he was created in your God's image. 
Maybe that is why you don't see him as evil. He has a lot of similar traits as your God. Is Hitler kind of 'biblical' to you?


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> Wouldn't a god choose men to write his book that are able to transcend cultures and times with their writings?



Why would a God choose men to write his book at all?
Why not just have the book appear, in all languages, as they develop? Wouldn't that be more God-like? 
God with a secretary seems more CEO-ish.


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> Why would a God choose men to write his book at all?
> Why not just have the book appear, in all languages, as they develop? Wouldn't that be more God-like?
> God with a secretary seems more CEO-ish.


Yep
Now if we found a book claiming to be the work of a god and it is written with letters that we do not use, in a language that is not like any on the planet yet it could be read and understood universally by all, then I would concede it's god-like. Even more so  if it was indestructible and has stood  in its original state since discovery.

What we do have is a book that is so unclear that it is open to interpretation and even it's own believers cannot agree on what it mean.
We have copies of translated copies that date back to the 4th century because every earlier version that was found was purposely destroyed or turned to dust with postage stamp sized remnants remaining.
Multiple anonymous authors works over the span of thousands of years decided upon by other men as to which makes the cut is about as ungodlike as it gets.


----------



## hobbs27

bullethead said:


> Yep
> Now if we found a book claiming to be the work of a god and it is written with letters that we do not use, in a language that is not like any on the planet yet it could be read and understood universally by all, then I would concede it's god-like. Even more so  if it was indestructible and has stood  in its original state since discovery.
> 
> What we do have is a book that is so unclear that it is open to interpretation and even it's own believers cannot agree on what it mean.
> We have copies of translated copies that date back to the 4th century because every earlier version that was found was purposely destroyed or turned to dust with postage stamp sized remnants remaining.
> Multiple anonymous authors works over the span of thousands of years decided upon by other men as to which makes the cut is about as ungodlike as it gets.



I love the complication of the book. I will spend a lifetime in it, because of the way it's written. My spirit feeds off it, I'm somewhat of a junkie when it comes to studying it, and my high is when a mystery is solved or a little gem jumps out at me that I have never noticed before.


----------



## bullethead

hobbs27 said:


> I love the complication of the book. I will spend a lifetime in it, because of the way it's written. My spirit feeds off it, I'm somewhat of a junkie when it comes to studying it, and my high is when a mystery is solved or a little gem jumps out at me that I have never noticed before.


I do too, like I do with many current novels and ancient writings.
One problem with each individual that reads it is we all solve those mysteries and find little gems but none of them are universal. We all come away with different meanings and interpretations. Honestly, that is what makes fictional books so great and a reason why they separate that style of books from factual history.


----------



## Israel

660griz said:


> This is precisely where myself and your God would have words.



Go for it. And I don't mean that in anything but the most encouraging way a man might.



> Yes. Really. Psychoanalyzing Hitler was pretty popular. I believe the general consensus was that he had some mental issues but, not enough to be diagnosed as 'crazy'. Therefore, he knew right from wrong.



I've yet to find anything, among men (and I am surely included...shouldn't even have to say it) more flexible.
And, what are _mental issues?_ Seriously.








> I believe him to be both. You should also believe he was created in your God's image.
> Maybe that is why you don't see him as evil. He has a lot of similar traits as your God. Is Hitler kind of 'biblical' to you?



Are we both speaking English? I thought I was, do I need to czech? I believed you knew what an archetype usually refers to. What makes you infer from anything I have said that you have the liberty to attribute that? 
Have you made the mistake of imagining I don't know what "cleverness" means? And looks like?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> I would not suggest you believe me. You're way too smart.
> But, do a little research. And get back to me, if you care to.
> Show me the place (besides inferring from his soldiering in WWI) that Hitler ever killed anyone.
> And then (maybe) tell me about the power of pride, the residence of a "goodness" in man, and the persuasions of persona and word.
> 
> You may discover, as have I, the only man Hitler may ever have killed was himself.
> 
> But, you have already stopped hearing.



Well, that's quite the accusation from someone who holds Hitler harmless for the Holocaust. 

He fanned the flames of anger after WWI and aimed it right at the Jews, saying that they were the ones responsible for the post-war German's lot in life.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hummerpoo said:


> Scriptural support required.
> Or is this an assumption from lack of knowledge.



OK, God doesn't choose randomly. We do know that his choosing isn't based on anything we do. 
Is there anything in scripture that tells us we should be more like God in granting others our love? Should we only grant love to our brothers in Christ?  Should we only help sick Christians?


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> We do know that his choosing isn't based on anything we do.



Does God choose for His purpose, or
does God create for His purpose?


----------



## ambush80

RH Clark said:


> Glad to see another who doesn't buy into that theology. I was beginning to think I was badly outnumbered.



Do you think God is ever surprised by who gets saved and who doesn't?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> OK, God doesn't choose randomly. We do know that his choosing isn't based on anything we do.
> Is there anything in scripture that tells us we should be more like God in granting others our love? Should we only grant love to our brothers in Christ?  Should we only help sick Christians?


 
If I'm understanding you correctly, and that salvation has nothing to do with committed acts, one way or the other, what's the point in doing any of them?


----------



## hobbs27

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Well, that's quite the accusation from someone who holds Hitler harmless for the Holocaust.
> 
> He fanned the flames of anger after WWI and aimed it right at the Jews, saying that they were the ones responsible for the post-war German's lot in life.



* sarcasm*  The Iranians are right, there was no Holocaust. Hitler killed no Jews he merely ordered it done, and the SS killed no Jews, they merely followed orders..


----------



## StriperrHunterr

hobbs27 said:


> * sarcasm*  The Iranians are right, there was no Holocaust. Hitler killed no Jews he merely ordered it done, and the SS killed no Jews, they merely followed orders..



Of course, they all just happened to line up in cattle cars, starve themselves, and then jump in those crematoriums all of their own accord so as to create the image that Hitler was awful. Brilliant.


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> And, what are _mental issues?_ Seriously.



In his book, Dr. Redlich runs through a list of psychiatric symptoms -- paranoia, narcissism, anxiety, depression, hypochondria, to name a few -- and finds some evidence for every one.



> Are we both speaking English? I thought I was, do I need to czech?


 I have problems with some dialects. 


> What makes you infer from anything I have said that you have the liberty to attribute that?


 Hopefully, I have gotten 'that' right. "Before God, Hitler and Gluttony is the same." 
I don't know how you can know that but, assuming it is true and you feel the same, inference drawn. 


> Have you made the mistake of imagining I don't know what "cleverness" means? And looks like?


 Don't care. Not trying to be 'clever'. Just trying to have a discussion without getting into the weeds. Like, what mental issues? Seriously?



> Originally Posted by StripeRR HunteRR True, you'll find out what a glutton will do for food, but do you really think that makes them equal to Hitler, morally?





> By Israel For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
> How "far short" is short compared to the perfect?



You seemed to answer a seemingly simple question, "do you really think that makes them equal to Hitler, morally?", with a question. 
Here is another question. Do you believe the punishment should fit the crime?
Do you think it is justice for a person that ate too much to be next to a genocidal maniac?


----------



## Israel

Israel:



> Before God, Hitler and the glutton are on precisely the same ground.
> 
> You say, "I am sure he had an idea he was pretty evil"
> Really?



This might be better understood...
Before God, Hitler and I are on the same ground.

The convenience of Hitler as the _archetype_ of evil, is just that, for convenience. It gives that false comfort to a man so ascribing.
"I may have my faults, but I am no Hitler."
From there it's less than a small step (because it is inherent in the previous mindset) to: 
"actually, I am good...because I recognize _real evil_ so handily"   I don't confuse real evil with _other_ evil. "I know evil..._when I see it_!"

So, you saw it in Hitler practically foaming at the mouth.
But, what did you see in the farmer laboring late into the evening, scraping out a living from the land for his family, not even listening to his radio of Berlin's broadcast? The one that would later be a guard at Treblinka, or Aushwitz?
The shopkeeper, the accountant, the doctor, ...tending so solicitously to his patients? Or...is it just the Germans (assisted later by very willing Poles in manning camps) that are so very very wicked?

Remember, Hitler is at your suggestion.
What of My Lai?

The "fresh faced boys" and young men?

The facile response could be "well, there's good and evil...in everyone"

No, _only_ good is God. Only God _is good._

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more..."

Because I am man, a bag of water and dirt, I have no place to accuse any other _of their relative, to me...evil._ My balance..._is less than just._

God's disposition, is righteous, however.
And perfect.

Regardless that I may fall to a convenience, his justice remains perfect in that, too.
As does His mercy


----------



## Artfuldodger

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If I'm understanding you correctly, and that salvation has nothing to do with committed acts, one way or the other, what's the point in doing any of them?



To show proof that one has been chosen and has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> To show proof that one has been chosen and has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.



To who and for what purpose? If acts don't matter then no one will be saved by them and you're only showing off.


----------



## welderguy

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If I'm understanding you correctly, and that salvation has nothing to do with committed acts, one way or the other, what's the point in doing any of them?



Love for the Giver of salvation is the true motivation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

welderguy said:


> Love for the Giver of salvation is the true motivation.



Okay.


----------



## hummerpoo

Artfuldodger said:


> To show proof that one has been chosen and has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To who and for what purpose? If acts don't matter then no one will be saved by them and you're only showing off.



Exactly,* 
it's all about God,
or God is not.



welderguy said:


> Love for the Giver of salvation is the true motivation.



*(except that the acts do matter as a necessary exercise of love)


----------



## RH Clark

ambush80 said:


> Do you think God is ever surprised by who gets saved and who doesn't?



I don't really know. I do know that he greatly rejoices when anyone is saved.

Some things in scripture tend to make you think God knows exactly who will be saved and some things tend to lead you to believe he might not. I think if God doesn't know it's because he chooses not to know.


----------



## bullethead

RH Clark said:


> I don't really know. I do know that he greatly rejoices when anyone is saved.
> 
> Some things in scripture tend to make you think God knows exactly who will be saved and some things tend to lead you to believe he might not. I think if God doesn't know it's because he chooses not to know.



How could you possibly KNOW God rejoices when someone is saved?


----------



## outdooraddict

Sorry, I haven't read through everyone's comments but when I caught that there was a discussion about Sam Harris and his concepts in his book Free Will, I have to laugh. I got half way through it and couldn't overcome the self defeating arguments. He actually says "_Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control_." Then turn to the back cover and read the comments-"_If he is right, the book will radically change the way we view ourselves as human beings_" and " _Sam Harris argues that free will doesn't exist....once we think about it in the right way-we can appreciate..that it doesn't exist_". Is that laughable. I want to convince you to buy of your own free will a book on how there is no free will, and the folks writing on the back cover hope to convince you, of your own free will, that I am right. Completely absurd, trying to change your opinion while telling you that you can't help your opinion it's already programmed in. Telling you his position is right while informing you that your thoughts are pre-programed and therefore aren't capable of telling you what is right, only responding in a "non-freewill" way with no connection to what is right or true. Obviously he either doesn't believe what he is saying or isn't bright enough to see the obviously self-defeating conflict.


----------



## RH Clark

bullethead said:


> How could you possibly KNOW God rejoices when someone is saved?



He told me he does.


----------



## Israel

outdooraddict said:


> Sorry, I haven't read through everyone's comments but when I caught that there was a discussion about Sam Harris and his concepts in his book Free Will, I have to laugh. I got half way through it and couldn't overcome the self defeating arguments. He actually says "_Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control_." Then turn to the back cover and read the comments-"_If he is right, the book will radically change the way we view ourselves as human beings_" and " _Sam Harris argues that free will doesn't exist....once we think about it in the right way-we can appreciate..that it doesn't exist_". Is that laughable. I want to convince you to buy of your own free will a book on how there is no free will, and the folks writing on the back cover hope to convince you, of your own free will, that I am right. Completely absurd, trying to change your opinion while telling you that you can't help your opinion it's already programmed in. Telling you his position is right while informing you that your thoughts are pre-programed and therefore aren't capable of telling you what is right, only responding in a "non-freewill" way with no connection to what is right or true. Obviously he either doesn't believe what he is saying or isn't bright enough to see the obviously self-defeating conflict.




Alchemists once had no idea there's more success turning thoughts (of whatever quality) into gold, than lead.

Some friend handed me an essay this fellow Harris had written on "Ethics"...it wasn't too far in before he made this confession about his endeavors and study in that area..."It made me a better person".
Odd, how anyone could know what a better "person" is without an irrefutably perfect standard against which to measure.


But the pleasures of alphabet manipulation seem irresistible to some. 

Till we choke on our own words.


----------



## bullethead

RH Clark said:


> He told me he does.


Oh boy


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Alchemists once had no idea there's more success turning thoughts (of whatever quality) into gold, than lead.
> 
> Some friend handed me an essay this fellow Harris had written on "Ethics"...it wasn't too far in before he made this confession about his endeavors and study in that area..."It made me a better person".
> Odd, how anyone could know what a better "person" is without an irrefutably perfect standard against which to measure.
> 
> 
> But the pleasures of alphabet manipulation seem irresistible to some.
> 
> Till we choke on our own words.


Pot/Kettle


----------



## 660griz

Israel said:


> Odd, how anyone could know what a better "person" is without an irrefutably perfect standard against which to measure.



It really is not that difficult. No 'perfect' standard needed.(or exists) 
Even in my long past career in Precision Measurement Equipment Lab, the standards were not perfect.



> But the pleasures of alphabet manipulation seem irresistible to some.


 Oh no you didn't.


----------



## outdooraddict

Absolutely Isreal. It seems we have lost our ability to identify self refuting arguments in life, logic is lost in relativism and believing what "feels right" whether it is from an atheistic or religious standpoint. I am saddened that we have reached a state where we can't even present rational statements. "You shouldn't judge others, judging is bad if you do judge then you are bad, and bad is bad. I'm telling you it's wrong to tell others how to live; there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong and if you say there is you are wrong (ethically); no one knows truth and if you claim you do you are wrong (not consistent with the truth)" Sam Harris is so incorrect in his statements on free will- just based on his own premises. I could just as easily write a book on how you can know that there is free will and then tell you that you can feel assured that this is correct because you have no choice in believing this as it is pre-programmed in your mental state and you couldn't believe anything else since you have no control over your thoughts. Silly.

We either admit there are no absolute ethical standards and quit telling others they have done wrong ethically or we identify the absolute standard.

We either admit there is free will or we stop writing books designed to convince others to accept our position and change theirs, based on free will and the idea of knowing truth.


----------



## outdooraddict

660griz said:


> It really is not that difficult. No 'perfect' standard needed.(or exists)
> Even in my long past career in Precision Measurement Equipment Lab, the standards were not perfect.
> 
> Oh no you didn't.



I humbly but completely disagree. "In the fields of science, engineering and statistics, the accuracy of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to that quantity's true value. The precision of a measurement system, related to reproducibility and repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results"  They absolutely (pun intended) assume an absolute standard by which accuracy can be defined.  Standards not being perfect is a statement of how inaccurate your tool is compared to the absolute. You must have an absolute reference to even make your statement. Another example of a self refuting argument


----------



## RH Clark

bullethead said:


> Oh boy



The long answer is that if you believe in God then you should believe what the bible says. If you don't believe in God or the bible, then a question about what God does, should never even be asked.


----------



## WaltL1

RH Clark said:


> The long answer is that if you believe in God then you should believe what the bible says. If you don't believe in God or the bible, then a question about what God does, should never even be asked.


Or as in my case (And maybe Bullets too) I've come to reject the bible as completely man inspired and man made so have no choice but to also reject the existence of God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

RH Clark said:


> The long answer is that if you believe in God then you should believe what the bible says. If you don't believe in God or the bible, then a question about what God does, should never even be asked.



I don't agree with that at all. If you don't believe you should still be able to question because how else is one still able to change their mind?


----------



## outdooraddict

WaltL1 said:


> Or as in my case (And maybe Bullets too) I've come to reject the bible as completely man inspired and man made so have no choice but to also reject the existence of God.



non sequitur, I would think you mean you reject God as described in the bible


----------



## WaltL1

outdooraddict said:


> non sequitur, I would think you mean you reject God as described in the bible


I'll redefine for you - The Christian god.


----------



## outdooraddict

WaltL1 said:


> I'll redefine for you - The Christian god.



JudeoChristian? Thanks


----------



## WaltL1

outdooraddict said:


> JudeoChristian? Thanks


I'm not interested in word games. I was pretty specific.


----------



## WaltL1

RH Clark said:


> The long answer is that if you believe in God then you should believe what the bible says. If you don't believe in God or the bible, then a question about what God does, should never even be asked.


Your first sentence may be Christianity's greatest strength AND greatest weakness rolled into one.
As for the second sentence you dont think the fact that belief in God can and does affect the lives of those who don't believe gives them a right to question why God has men do that in his name?


----------



## outdooraddict

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not interested in word games. I was pretty specific.



You were very specific. Once again though you weren't logically consistent. First you said by not believing in the bible that removed all possibility of a God (way over reaching), then you said by not believing the bible you had removed specifically the christian God (new testament basis primarily and too specific since you probably would have to remove the Jewish concept also, and maybe some of the Muslim basis). I'm sorry, I'm not playing word games, it's just that in general these discussions never seem too get far because folks don't define their terms, shift their definitions, commit self defeating arguments, or commit non sequiturs like your first statement. Not trying to be a pain, just assuming you probably have an important point to make but it doesn't flow logically.


----------



## WaltL1

outdooraddict said:


> You were very specific. Once again though you weren't logically consistent. First you said by not believing in the bible that removed all possibility of a God (way over reaching), then you said by not believing the bible you had removed specifically the christian God (new testament basis primarily and too specific since you probably would have to remove the Jewish concept also, and maybe some of the Muslim basis). I'm sorry, I'm not playing word games, it's just that in general these discussions never seem too get far because folks don't define their terms, shift their definitions, commit self defeating arguments, or commit non sequiturs like your first statement. Not trying to be a pain, just assuming you probably have an important point to make but it doesn't flow logically.


And sometimes these discussions don't get too far because one or the other reads more into a statement than was actually said.
First I'm agnostic so I haven't removed ALL possibility of a god. However if I reject the bible I am left with zero evidence of the Christian God exisisting. Belief there is one is not evidence and now I can't even look at a flower and say "look at that pretty flower God made" because that he created it is rooted in the bible.
Simply put, reject the bible and there is nothing left to believe God exists.
The exact same scenario applies to jewish, Muslim and every other religious belief system. 
That is the point.
And I cringe when the word logic gets used in these discussions. 
There is no logic that's gets you to a god.


----------



## outdooraddict

WaltL1 said:


> And sometimes these discussions don't get too far because one or the other reads more into a statement than was actually said.
> First I'm agnostic so I haven't removed ALL possibility of a god. However if I reject the bible I am left with zero evidence of the Christian God exisisting. Belief there is one is not evidence and now I can't even look at a flower and say "look at that pretty flower God made" because that he created it is rooted in the bible.
> Simply put, reject the bible and there is nothing left to believe God exists.
> The exact same scenario applies to jewish, Muslim and every other religious belief system.
> That is the point.
> And I cringe when the word logic gets used in these discussions.
> There is no logic that's gets you to a god.



Sorry, maybe I keep phrasing it poorly. I wasn't using logic to defend God, I was trying to clean up logically what you were saying so that I could understand it. I just have to see the world logically. By the way you did say "I've come to reject the bible as completely man inspired and man made so have no choice but to also reject the existence of God."

I start from the other direction, having come from a science background, steeped in logic I  hope. Did the universe have a beginning and if so what/where/by what source-looking for Aristotle's uncaused cause. Why does the universe seem to be designed in a way that would support life (anthropic principle) if it could have an infinite number of possible permutations. How do I get around the second law of thermodynamics in a universe that goes from order to disorder, yet evolves life and subsequently metaphyscial thought processes that lead you and I to search for the truth. Is the mind truly only a higher climb of evolutionary process originating from principles of survival and sexual reproduction and if it is then how do I ever really "know" anything because I would have to assume as with Sam Harris's silly free will book, that I would simply be programmed to hold that "thought state of mind" but couldn't really know anything at higher level truth state.  Do I believe there are absolutely morals or is everything including rape and murder merely a matter of taste and preference. 

I think I last got on this sight a year or 2 ago, and many well intentioned folks likely will weigh in to explain away these issues, but if it goes as it did before, the points always seem inadequate. The only logical conclusions seem to require a force with power, intellect, and morality to do the above. The only other logical answer to me is to just be agnostic and say I don't know, maybe God and maybe something else, but God is as good as any choice I suppose. Unfortunately accident, randomness, and biologic processes alone don't to me seem to get us to a point where we can ever even search for truth much less know it. We simply respond to stimuli in a way that advances survival and reproduction, we can not trust our senses for truth as Mr Scrooge says.

For me if "I think therefore I am" proves my existence, then I think and I trust my thought processes to search for truth, takes me somewhere more.


----------



## WaltL1

outdooraddict said:


> Sorry, maybe I keep phrasing it poorly. I wasn't using logic to defend God, I was trying to clean up logically what you were saying so that I could understand it. I just have to see the world logically. By the way you did say "I've come to reject the bible as completely man inspired and man made so have no choice but to also reject the existence of God."
> 
> I start from the other direction, having come from a science background. Did the universe have a beginning and if so what/where/by what source-looking for Aristotle's uncaused cause. Why does the universe seem to be designed in a way that would support life (anthropic principle) if it could have an infinite number of possible permutations. How do I get around the second law of thermodynamics in a universe that goes from order to disorder, yet evolves life and subsequently metaphyscial thought processes that lead you and I to search for the truth. Is the mind truly only a higher climb of evolutionary process originating from principles of survival and sexual reproduction and if it is then how do I ever really "know" anything because I would have to assume as with Sam Harris's silly free will book, that I would simply be programmed to hold that "thought state of mind" but couldn't really know anything at higher level truth state.  Do I believe there are absolutely morals or is everything including rape and murder merely a matter of taste and preference.
> 
> I think I last got on the sight a year or 2 ago, and many well intentioned folks likely will weigh in to explain away this issues, but if it goes as it did before, the points always seem inadequate. The only logical conclusions seem to require a force with power, intellect, and morality to do the above. The only other logical answer to me is to just be agnostic and say I don't know, maybe God and maybe something else, but God is as good as any choice I suppose. Unfortunately accident, randomness, and biologic processes alone don't to me seem to get us to a point where we can ever even search for truth much less know it. We simply respond to stimuli in a way that advances survival and reproduction, we can not trust our senses for truth as Mr Scrooge says.
> 
> For me if "I think therefore I am" proves my existence, then I think and I trust my thought processes to search for truth, takes me somewhere more.


Yes I reject the existence of God based on the reasons I gave. However I am open to the POSSIBILITY only because at this point we don't know for a FACT how we did get here.
I don't agree with that intellect and morality being required is a logical choice. I think it merely helps some make sense of what they see in the absence of answers.
A tick the size of a pin can kill you. Not a very intellectual design if we are supposed to be top dog.
Morality changes with time, location and from person to person. Certainly nothing ingrained there.
Neither do I believe God is as good as choice as any. Some pretty horrific acts, way of viewing and treating other people, wars and the list goes on that never would happen with "I don't know".
As for Sam Harris's he's just a guy with an opinion making a case for what he believes. It's mental exercise to me and that can come from myriad of people.
I think the search for truth is great and a worthy adventure. However I think alot of people get impatient and replace "the truth" with "the truth to them".


----------



## 660griz

outdooraddict said:


> I humbly but completely disagree. "In the fields of science, engineering and statistics, the accuracy of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to that quantity's true value. The precision of a measurement system, related to reproducibility and repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results"  They absolutely (pun intended) assume an absolute standard by which accuracy can be defined.  Standards not being perfect is a statement of how inaccurate your tool is compared to the absolute. You must have an absolute reference to even make your statement. Another example of a self refuting argument



You can disagree all you want. The fact is standards aren't perfect. Take the time standard for example. It has a very small inaccuracy and that is o.k. A reference, is as close as we can get to perfection but, not perfect. That, is an absolute.

A standard is just something to be measured against. Not perfect.


----------



## bullethead

RH Clark said:


> The long answer is that if you believe in God then you should believe what the bible says. If you don't believe in God or the bible, then a question about what God does, should never even be asked.


Then why the participation with atheists and agnostics?
The way I see it, this forum is for people who do question the bible and who do not believe in god  or any specific god to converse with people who are able to explain their beliefs in an apologetic way.
The answer you give is great a few floors above, in here, it is our job to ask you to explain yourself, your god and your bible, when you make outlandish claims.
In here, "God told me" is as good as "Yoda told me. All I'd like is for you to back it up. We know what you believe,  show us why it is irrefutable.


----------



## outdooraddict

WaltL1 said:


> Yes I reject the existence of God based on the reasons I gave. However I am open to the POSSIBILITY only because at this point we don't know for a FACT how we did get here.
> I don't agree with that intellect and morality being required is a logical choice. I think it merely helps some make sense of what they see in the absence of answers.
> A tick the size of a pin can kill you. Not a very intellectual design if we are supposed to be top dog.
> Morality changes with time, location and from person to person. Certainly nothing ingrained there.
> Neither do I believe God is as good as choice as any. Some pretty horrific acts, way of viewing and treating other people, wars and the list goes on that never would happen with "I don't know".
> As for Sam Harris's he's just a guy with an opinion making a case for what he believes. It's mental exercise to me and that can come from myriad of people.
> I think the search for truth is great and a worthy adventure. However I think alot of people get impatient and replace "the truth" with "the truth to them".



Thanks. Great thoughts. I keep thinking I can shut up but the discussion is addicting. I will shut up about a few of your points because I don't totally follow them. I would say on morality-you seem to be referring to "relativism" each person, society, culture decides it and it changes. I agree relativism works that way. However I was refering to an absolute moral standard which is why I asked if you found rape and murder absolutely wrong, just distasteful, or actually ok in certain countries where it seems to be a norm. I think you are therefore saying that you think morality is relative and therefore, for instance, we have no reason to involve our selves in the affairs of other nations where genocide, rape and torture occur, because that would be for them to decide if it's right or wrong. Saddam, and Hitlers crew tried that, saying they only followed the laws of their land. That seems to be refuted by your statement that it is frustrating when people "_ replace "the truth" with "the truth to them". _ I agree that truth to them ( relativism) in my humble opinion only works for favorite flavors of ice cream but not truth issues, including morality.

Also, you said _"Neither do I believe God is as good as choice as any. Some pretty horrific acts, way of viewing and treating other people, wars and the list goes on that never would happen with "I don't know"."_ I think what you are saying is that there are bad (immoral) things in the world and so there can't be a God but 1. That may argue that God is morally bad IF we can come up with some other absolutely standard by which to grade him and 2. I thought you were holding to a position that morals change over time and aren't absolute so how would it even be possible for God to be morally bad throughout time? Wouldn't it mean he was possibly good at times when I suspect you hold him responsible for atrocities committed "in his name by men" if at that time they accepted this as norm, but bad at other times when our morals changed?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks. Great thoughts. I keep thinking I can shut up but the discussion is addicting. I will shut up about a few of your points because I don't totally follow them. I would say on morality-you seem to be referring to "relativism" each person, society, culture decides it and it changes. I agree relativism works that way. However I was refering to an absolute moral standard which is why I asked if you found rape and murder absolutely wrong, just distasteful, or actually ok in certain countries where it seems to be a norm. I think you are therefore saying that you think morality is relative and therefore, for instance, we have no reason to involve our selves in the affairs of other nations where genocide, rape and torture occur, because that would be for them to decide if it's right or wrong. Saddam, and Hitlers crew tried that, saying they only followed the laws of their land. That seems to be refuted by your statement that it is frustrating when people "_ replace "the truth" with "the truth to them". _ I agree that truth to them ( relativism) in my humble opinion only works for favorite flavors of ice cream but not truth issues, including morality.
> 
> Also, you said _"Neither do I believe God is as good as choice as any. Some pretty horrific acts, way of viewing and treating other people, wars and the list goes on that never would happen with "I don't know"."_ I think what you are saying is that there are bad (immoral) things in the world and so there can't be a God but 1. That may argue that God is morally bad IF we can come up with some other absolutely standard by which to grade him and 2. I thought you were holding to a position that morals change over time and aren't absolute so how would it even be possible for God to be morally bad throughout time? Wouldn't it mean he was possibly good at times when I suspect you hold him responsible for atrocities committed "in his name by men" if at that time they accepted this as norm, but bad at other times when our morals changed?


Wouldn't someone at some point have to actually come up with a god before we can take anything further?
We are talking about a concept of a god here.
Nowhere has anyone proven an absolute moral standard exists. The best you have is the moral standard of ancient anonymous writers, which has not set the bar very high.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Wouldn't someone at some point have to actually come up with a god before we can take anything further?
> We are talking about a concept of a god here.
> Nowhere has anyone proven an absolute moral standard exists. The best you have is the moral standard of ancient anonymous writers, which has not set the bar very high.



My thoughts exactly which is why I stated I start at the other end, do they exist? If you don't believe there are any absolute morals such as the "wrongness of murder, rape, genocide, infanticide, etc" then while you are in the minority historically you may still be right and then of course you aren't searching for the source of absolute morals. Of course as they say when all else fails with a relativist, steal their car. I do object to saying there are no absolute morals and then saying that you don't believe in God because looking at history you feel God is bad/mean/immoral. That is another self refuting argument.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> My thoughts exactly which is why I stated I start at the other end, do they exist? If you don't believe there are any absolute morals such as the "wrongness of murder, rape, genocide, infanticide, etc" then while you are in the minority historically you may still be right and then of course you aren't searching for the source of absolute morals. Of course as they say when all else fails with a relativist, steal their car. I do object to saying there are no absolute morals and then saying that you don't believe in God because looking at history you feel God is bad/mean/immoral. That is another self refuting argument.


When speaking about the bible, the God portrayed in there is a character like in any other book and is only given qualities that the writers wanted and were acceptable at the time. That character certainly is immoral.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> When speaking about the bible, the God portrayed in there is a character like in any other book and is only given qualities that the writers wanted and were acceptable at the time. That character certainly is immoral.



Certainly immoral? But you said "Wouldn't someone at some point have to actually come up with a god before we can take anything further?" "Nowhere has anyone proven an absolute moral standard exists."


----------



## WaltL1

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks. Great thoughts. I keep thinking I can shut up but the discussion is addicting. I will shut up about a few of your points because I don't totally follow them. I would say on morality-you seem to be referring to "relativism" each person, society, culture decides it and it changes. I agree relativism works that way. However I was refering to an absolute moral standard which is why I asked if you found rape and murder absolutely wrong, just distasteful, or actually ok in certain countries where it seems to be a norm. I think you are therefore saying that you think morality is relative and therefore, for instance, we have no reason to involve our selves in the affairs of other nations where genocide, rape and torture occur, because that would be for them to decide if it's right or wrong. Saddam, and Hitlers crew tried that, saying they only followed the laws of their land. That seems to be refuted by your statement that it is frustrating when people "_ replace "the truth" with "the truth to them". _ I agree that truth to them ( relativism) in my humble opinion only works for favorite flavors of ice cream but not truth issues, including morality.
> 
> Also, you said _"Neither do I believe God is as good as choice as any. Some pretty horrific acts, way of viewing and treating other people, wars and the list goes on that never would happen with "I don't know"."_ I think what you are saying is that there are bad (immoral) things in the world and so there can't be a God but 1. That may argue that God is morally bad IF we can come up with some other absolutely standard by which to grade him and 2. I thought you were holding to a position that morals change over time and aren't absolute so how would it even be possible for God to be morally bad throughout time? Wouldn't it mean he was possibly good at times when I suspect you hold him responsible for atrocities committed "in his name by men" if at that time they accepted this as norm, but bad at other times when our morals changed?


We aren't here to shut up 
Yes morality is relative. There is no absolute moral standard to discuss.
Now some of your questions get complicated and some of it has to with the definitions that our society has given the words we are using.
Murder - our society has legally defined abortion as NOT being murder.
So if a different country has defined the killing of 10 year olds for not milking their goat properly as NOT murder should we invade them and stop them from doing it?
I don't know.
We are one of very few civilized countries with the death penalty. Is that murder? Not according to our laws. Should another country invade us and stop us from doing it?
Torture - I was in the Marines so maybe my opinion is jaded but I'm good with water boarding, or smasing bones or carving up the heck out of an enemy if it's going to save just 1 other serviceman. However it's illegal under the Geneva Convention.
Genocide - maybe the least complicated for me. Yes I would say we have a moral obligation to stop it. Truly innocent victims involved.
What do you think about genocide?
Does "who" does it make it ok in a certain instance?
My "God is not as good a choice as any"  comment reflects the things that man has done in the name of this God that he can't even prove exists. I've heard from a number of Christians and that statement even suggests it itself that there is no answer so God must have made us. But it doesn't end there. Then the religion of/about that God kicks in and that's when the bad stuff happens.
"I don't know" is much less likely to cause a person to deny rights to other people, burn them at the stake, disown them, fight them  etc etc.
Was God possibly also good according to the stories? Sure (as long as you believe). How much good makes up for bad? And vice versa?
And lastly no, that there are bad things in the world are no more a reflection on God  (any of them) than there are good things in the world.
It's a reflection on humans. We as a race are capable of wonderful and horrific things.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Certainly immoral? But you said "Wouldn't someone at some point have to actually come up with a god before we can take anything further?" "Nowhere has anyone proven an absolute moral standard exists."


That character measures equally with human morals. That is the level that has been portrayed  by the writers of those stories. Its actions are less moral than what our current society tolerates, so yes it can be judged. We can only judge by what we can observe and by what history has shown. If higher standards exist I would love to hear about them.
At this point the biblical character god has not set a higher standard of morals and only equalled the morals of the culture of that era.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> That character measures equally with human morals. That is the level that has been portrayed  by the writers of those stories. Its actions are less moral than what our current society tolerates, so yes it can be judged. We can only judge by what we can observe and by what history has shown. If higher standards exist I would love to hear about them.



So God is NOT certainly immoral?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> So God is NOT certainly immoral?


Relatively immoral.
To you,god may not be immoral.
To me, it might be immoral.
To our court system, probably immoral.
To some middle eastern culture, maybe not immoral.
Depends on who is judging.

Now, commanding tho shalt not kill after drowning  20 million....talk about self refuting.


----------



## outdooraddict

WaltL1 said:


> We aren't here to shut up
> Yes morality is relative. There is no absolute moral standard to discuss.
> Now some of your questions get complicated and some of it has to with the definitions that our society has given the words we are using.
> Murder - our society has legally defined abortion as NOT being murder.
> So if a different country has defined the killing of 10 year olds for not milking their goat properly as NOT murder should we invade them and stop them from doing it?
> I don't know.
> We are one of very few civilized countries with the death penalty. Is that murder? Not according to our laws. Should another country invade us and stop us from doing it?
> Torture - I was in the Marines so maybe my opinion is jaded but I'm good with water boarding, or smasing bones or carving up the heck out of an enemy if it's going to save just 1 other serviceman. However it's illegal under the Geneva Convention.
> Genocide - maybe the least complicated for me. Yes I would say we have a moral obligation to stop it. Truly innocent victims involved.
> What do you think about genocide?
> Does "who" does it make it ok in a certain instance?
> My "God is not as good a choice as any"  comment reflects the things that man has done in the name of this God that he can't even prove exists. I've heard from a number of Christians and that statement even suggests it itself that there is no answer so God must have made us. But it doesn't end there. Then the religion of/about that God kicks in and that's when the bad stuff happens.
> "I don't know" is much less likely to cause a person to deny rights to other people, burn them at the stake, disown them, fight them  etc etc.
> Was God possibly also good according to the stories? Sure (as long as you believe). How much good makes up for bad? And vice versa?
> And lastly no, that there are bad things in the world are no more a reflection on God  (any of them) than there are good things in the world.
> It's a reflection on humans. We as a race are capable of wonderful and horrific things.



Thanks, and I absolutely violated my own approach by not defining "murder" since that is an emotional loaded topic that shifts through many concepts including abortion and capital punishment and I should have defined what I meant specifically.

However if we think there is even one absolute moral ( right and wrong) then we are back at the starting point. You said "Yes morality is relative. There is no absolute moral standard to discuss" AND "Genocide - maybe the least complicated for me. Yes I would say we have a moral obligation to stop it. Truly innocent victims involved." Absolutely morally wrong or not? "Innocent victim", product of evolutionary behavior, weak pathetic protoplasm that can't even protect themselves, what are they really if no moral construct?


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Relatively immoral.
> To you,god may not be immoral.
> To me, it might be immoral.
> To our court system, probably immoral.
> To some middle eastern culture, maybe not immoral.
> Depends on who is judging.
> 
> Now, commanding tho shalt not kill after drowning  20 million....talk about self refuting.



We shifted back to relativism and no absolute morals and that's ok but if it is true then where I think you were going with the example is not self refuting, rather anyone at any time (including God) is ok to change what they think is right or wrong based on a personal preference at the moment. No absolutes.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks, and I absolutely violated my own approach by not defining "murder" since that is an emotional loaded topic that shifts through many concepts including abortion and capital punishment and I should have defined what I meant specifically.
> 
> However if we think there is even one absolute moral ( right and wrong) then we are back at the starting point. You said "Yes morality is relative. There is no absolute moral standard to discuss" AND "Genocide - maybe the least complicated for me. Yes I would say we have a moral obligation to stop it. Truly innocent victims involved." Absolutely morally wrong or not? "Innocent victim", product of evolutionary behavior, weak pathetic protoplasm that can't even protect themselves, what are they really if no moral construct?


They are at the mercy of others. If universal morals existed there would be no victims.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> We shifted back to relativism and no absolute morals and that's ok but if it is true then where I think you were going with the example is not self refuting, rather anyone at any time (including God) is ok to change what they think is right or wrong based on a personal preference at the moment. No absolutes.


That's fine with me, I don't believe there are absolutes where morals are concerned. The people that claim the God of the bible is the pinnacle of absolute morals cannot prove their case. 
For the sake of this discussion my understanding of God is that it is a character in a book. It's actions prove to be less moral than many humans in the society and culture that I live in.  
If the argument is; The God of the bible has relative morals. Then I agree. It has no more, no less, no different morals that have been and are found throughout the world. 
If the argument is; The God of the bible has absolute morals. Then I disagree based off of the portrayal of the actions the writers have given it. Unless of course, rape, murder, slavery etc is absolutely moral.

What is your opinion?
Is the God of the bible absolutely moral or relatively moral?......and why?


----------



## WaltL1

outdooraddict said:


> Thanks, and I absolutely violated my own approach by not defining "murder" since that is an emotional loaded topic that shifts through many concepts including abortion and capital punishment and I should have defined what I meant specifically.
> 
> However if we think there is even one absolute moral ( right and wrong) then we are back at the starting point. You said "Yes morality is relative. There is no absolute moral standard to discuss" AND "Genocide - maybe the least complicated for me. Yes I would say we have a moral obligation to stop it. Truly innocent victims involved." Absolutely morally wrong or not? "Innocent victim", product of evolutionary behavior, weak pathetic protoplasm that can't even protect themselves, what are they really if no moral construct?


Again there is no absolute morality.
Right and wrong is the same as moral or immoral. Which is to say relative.
My innocent victims view is merely an example of relative morality.
It's what makes a difference to me personally.
The Jews in the ovens weren't viewed as innocent victims to the SS.
Relative morality.


----------



## bullethead

As we speak I am watching Jim Shockey along with the Masai warriors. They are killing a goat for supper. The method of suffocation is certainly not something that coincides with "our" morals. Being that every single drop of blood is used because it is vital to the survival of the tribe,  suffocating the animal is a moral act within their culture. In my country, state, county, borough, town... I'd be brought up on charges.


----------



## Israel

Sounds like you are "all in" on the relative.
It would then be a canard to engage another man on any ground pertaining to a thing called truth. 
Except truth be the ruse to do something with that man in engagement.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Sounds like you are "all in" on the relative.
> It would then be a canard to engage another man on any ground pertaining to a thing called truth.
> Except truth be the ruse to do something with that man in engagement.


Human enigma machine strikes again.
When the conversation gets thought provokingly good, babble in code to break the mood.


----------



## ambush80

outdooraddict said:


> Sorry, maybe I keep phrasing it poorly. I wasn't using logic to defend God, I was trying to clean up logically what you were saying so that I could understand it. I just have to see the world logically. By the way you did say "I've come to reject the bible as completely man inspired and man made so have no choice but to also reject the existence of God."
> 
> I start from the other direction, having come from a science background, steeped in logic I  hope. Did the universe have a beginning and if so what/where/by what source-looking for Aristotle's uncaused cause.



So you've elected to pursue discovering the uncaused cause, with nothing other than the suggestion of Aristotle (who got the idea from others before him). It seems natural to infer agency.  There's pretty good evidence that we're evolved to do it, doesn't mean it's there. 




outdooraddict said:


> Why does the universe seem to be designed in a way that would support life (anthropic principle) if it could have an infinite number of possible permutations.



An infinite number of permutations may have been tried.  This one obviously produced us.  This is purely speculation but in my opinion less entangled and baggage laden than the theory of a jealous, lonely being.  That should strike a scientist as a truly odd notion.   It's like assuming the clank in your drive train is gremlins or evil spirits.  When you start down that path when does it become too much?  Yes a donkey can talk but Ayahuasca is NOT a magical plant than transports you to another dimension.  Prayer works but NOT chciken blood.  Lambs blood works but NOT Amethyst.



outdooraddict said:


> How do I get around the second law of thermodynamics in a universe that goes from order to disorder, yet evolves life and subsequently metaphyscial thought processes that lead you and I to search for the truth. Is the mind truly only a higher climb of evolutionary process originating from principles of survival and sexual reproduction



Maybe.  Why couldn't it be?



outdooraddict said:


> and if it is then how do I ever really "know" anything because I would have to assume as with Sam Harris's silly free will book, that I would simply be programmed to hold that "thought state of mind" but couldn't really know anything at higher level truth state.  Do I believe there are absolutely morals or is everything including rape and murder merely a matter of taste and preference.



 How do you sense this higher level of truth state?  Is it part of an intellectual exercise?  Is it because you've been exposed to the notion? Can you justify your position that there are absolute morals?  I imagine it will be something like "I feel it.  I just know it".  Then "It's written in this bizarre book that I believe to be true because......." 



outdooraddict said:


> I think I last got on this sight a year or 2 ago, and many well intentioned folks likely will weigh in to explain away these issues, but if it goes as it did before, the points always seem inadequate. The only logical conclusions seem to require a force with power, intellect, and morality to do the above.



William Lane Craig often says things like that but he never explains how it must certainly follow.  Furthermore, he never examines the numerous other possibilities of what an agent, if one exists, could be like.  It's like the one that he likes.  



outdooraddict said:


> The only other logical answer to me is to just be agnostic and say I don't know, maybe God and maybe something else, but God is as good as any choice I suppose.



I don't suppose.  

The idea of God is messy and too obscure as to even be useful to explain anything.  It seems clear to a subscriber of a particular religion what God is like because they just accept without skepticism what their religion says about God.  Now what would happen if you had to make your own one up?  What would He/She be like?  I imagine He/She would reflect modern morality and the advances in knowledge that have been made by secularism.  




outdooraddict said:


> Unfortunately accident, randomness, and biologic processes alone don't to me seem to get us to a point where we can ever even search for truth much less know it. We simply respond to stimuli in a way that advances survival and reproduction, we can not trust our senses for truth as Mr Scrooge says.



Why not?  You have a brain that evolved to turn over rocks and split atoms.  It can even conjure ideas about mysticism and theology. Why did "someone" have to have anything to do with that?  The argument is that intelligence had to originate from intelligence.  If intelligence is the result of organizing squishy grey matter in such a way that electrical impulses can generate thoughts then it's no more mysterious than why gold is soft and shiny or why sugar forms hexagonal crystals.  I think people find agency because they want to, for many reasons, most of them were passed on to them. I think that people that don't see agency haven't come to that conclusion because they seek _non-agency_.  They come to that conclusion because they've found no evidence for it.




outdooraddict said:


> For me if "I think therefore I am" proves my existence, then I think and I trust my thought processes to search for truth, takes me somewhere more.



Somewhere more is good.  There's probably much more that we don't know.  Re-hashing the "something more" of people that didn't know that washing their hands killed germs seems unwise.


----------



## outdooraddict

660griz said:


> You can disagree all you want. The fact is standards aren't perfect. Take the time standard for example. It has a very small inaccuracy and that is o.k. A reference, is as close as we can get to perfection but, not perfect. That, is an absolute.
> 
> A standard is just something to be measured against. Not perfect.



This simply isn't correct. Time is exact (unless we are really going to delve into relativity) it's the clock that isn't accurate. The standard is absolute. A pound is 1.000000000etc pounds. The accuracy is dependent on the tool which is what you are really talking about and may be accurate to plus or minus 5% or described as to .95-1.05 lbs but a pound is still exactly a pound. If the load on your rifle is precise you will cloverleaf the bullets because they hit precisely on the target yet you may be way off the bullseye and not accurate compared to the bullseye standard. You may be all over the bullseye with a 1.5 inch spread and be less precise with the load but more accurate to the bullseye. BUT the bullseye is still exactly the bullseye, it isn't moving around. If your scope is loose, you may wobble all around the bullseye with your hits but the bullseye isn't moving. Your standard is exact, it is the limits of your tools that have the variability and inaccuracy or imprecision.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> They are at the mercy of others. If universal morals existed there would be no victims.



I don't know what that means? I would think that if there are no universal morals there are no victims. Victims seems to imply someone treated them "wrong". A rabbit is prey to a coyote not a victim I would think that naturilistically this is as it "should be" not an immoral situation.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> That's fine with me, I don't believe there are absolutes where morals are concerned. The people that claim the God of the bible is the pinnacle of absolute morals cannot prove their case.
> For the sake of this discussion my understanding of God is that it is a character in a book. It's actions prove to be less moral than many humans in the society and culture that I live in.
> If the argument is; The God of the bible has relative morals. Then I agree. It has no more, no less, no different morals that have been and are found throughout the world.
> If the argument is; The God of the bible has absolute morals. Then I disagree based off of the portrayal of the actions the writers have given it. Unless of course, rape, murder, slavery etc is absolutely moral.
> 
> What is your opinion?
> Is the God of the bible absolutely moral or relatively moral?......and why?



Again I must confess I don't understand the question. You said "I don't believe there are absolutes where morals are concerned" and then you said "It's (God's?) actions prove to be less moral than many humans" How can there be a more or less moral if there are no absolute moral references? That seems to be like saying there is no such thing as light and then arguing over what thinks are brighter and darker.


----------



## outdooraddict

ambush80 said:


> So you've elected to pursue discovering the uncaused cause, with nothing other than the suggestion of Aristotle (who got the idea from others before him). It seems natural to infer agency.  There's pretty good evidence that we're evolved to do it, doesn't mean it's there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An infinite number of permutations may have been tried.  This one obviously produced us.  This is purely speculation but in my opinion less entangled and baggage laden than the theory of a jealous, lonely being.  That should strike a scientist as a truly odd notion.   It's like assuming the clank in your drive train is gremlins or evil spirits.  When you start down that path when does it become too much?  Yes a donkey can talk but Ayahuasca is NOT a magical plant than transports you to another dimension.  Prayer works but NOT chciken blood.  Lambs blood works but NOT Amethyst.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.  Why couldn't it be?
> 
> 
> 
> How do you sense this higher level of truth state?  Is it part of an intellectual exercise?  Is it because you've been exposed to the notion? Can you justify your position that there are absolute morals?  I imagine it will be something like "I feel it.  I just know it".  Then "It's written in this bizarre book that I believe to be true because......."
> 
> 
> 
> William Lane Craig often says things like that but he never explains how it must certainly follow.  Furthermore, he never examines the numerous other possibilities of what an agent, if one exists, could be like.  It's like the one that he likes.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't suppose.
> 
> The idea of God is messy and too obscure as to even be useful to explain anything.  It seems clear to a subscriber of a particular religion what God is like because they just accept without skepticism what their religion says about God.  Now what would happen if you had to make your own one up?  What would He/She be like?  I imagine He/She would reflect modern morality and the advances in knowledge that have been made by secularism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  You have a brain that evolved to turn over rocks and split atoms.  It can even conjure ideas about mysticism and theology. Why did "someone" have to have anything to do with that?  The argument is that intelligence had to originate from intelligence.  If intelligence is the result of organizing squishy grey matter in such a way that electrical impulses can generate thoughts then it's no more mysterious than why gold is soft and shiny or why sugar forms hexagonal crystals.  I think people find agency because they want to, for many reasons, most of them were passed on to them. I think that people that don't see agency haven't come to that conclusion because they seek _non-agency_.  They come to that conclusion because they've found no evidence for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere more is good.  There's probably much more that we don't know.  Re-hashing the "something more" of people that didn't know that washing their hands killed germs seems unwise.



_*So you've elected to pursue discovering the uncaused cause, with nothing other than the suggestion of Aristotle (who got the idea from others before him). It seems natural to infer agency. There's pretty good evidence that we're evolved to do it, doesn't mean it's there.  I don't follow that claim at all.*_ 

Aristotle based it on a logical position, if you are claiming we don't have the intellect, logic and reason, why are you even stating your position? If we are evolved to a position then of course there is no reason to take it as truth, only a survival benefit. What is this pretty good evidence and how could I believe anyway unless I were evolved to accept it rather than to know it as truth?

_*An infinite number of permutations may have been tried. This one obviously produced us. *

I remember reading of a lady who one the lottery 3 times and authorities were on her quickly. They stated that when something statistically impossible happens anyway you know someone is gaming the system, it's just logical. We don't assume "oh well it just happened by chance".

Maybe. Why couldn't it be?  

I don't believe in magic

*
How do you sense this higher level of truth state? Is it part of an intellectual exercise? Is it because you've been exposed to the notion? Can you justify your position that there are absolute morals? I imagine it will be something like "I feel it. I just know it". Then "It's written in this bizarre book that I believe to be true because......." *

I don't think I've said what I believe other than in logic or reason for now. If you question a higher truth state why do you try to defend what you feel is true? Part of an intellectual exercise for you? But why would it matter if you can't then define truth or how to find it. If you can, do tell.

*William Lane Craig often says things like that but he never explains how it must certainly follow. Furthermore, he never examines the numerous other possibilities of what an agent, if one exists, could be like. It's like the one that he likes. *

I would love to examine the other possibilities and I mean that sincerely. What I'm saying is everyone keeps stumbling around morality, logic, reason, and like it or not a universe with certain specific properties. We keep assuming this a priori, but no one comes up with another source. Agreeably we resort to trying to get around things like absolute morals but that is really to cheat because at the root most of us hold that there are certain things that are absolutely wrong for all times, we just don't want to admit it because we are afraid of where that takes us. I believe in truth and I believe we can work to the most logical choices based on reason. However I'm not hearing a lot of good alternatives for why that would be so I assume others perhaps don't really believe in truth or how it can be known, and are focusing more on stimulus and why we respond the way we do. But how could you even rationally examine that?

*The idea of God is messy and too obscure as to even be useful to explain anything. It seems clear to a subscriber of a particular religion what God is like because they just accept without skepticism what their religion says about God. Now what would happen if you had to make your own one up? What would He/She be like? I imagine He/She would reflect modern morality and the advances in knowledge that have been made by secularism.* 

Messy for you? If I made God up the being definitely wound not reflect our present cultural morality, but then what. If you are proposing that different cultures have different ideas of what God is or correct morals are and that proves there are no correct morals or a correct idea of God, that again is a logical errror. It would be like saying that every culture gives a different answer for what 2+2 is so no one is right, and there is no right answer. That is an invalid conclusion. It might be that everyone comes up with the wrong answer but that doesn't mean there is no correct answer. If it is absolute then one culture may have it right but they can't all be.

*Why not? You have a brain that evolved to turn over rocks and split atoms....I think that people that don't see agency haven't come to that conclusion because they seek non-agency. They come to that conclusion because they've found no evidence for it.
*

Again I think you are stretching what you can conclude. We evolutionarily turn over rocks if it is genetically programmed to help us survive. Maybe we find a bug to eat. We would "conclude" things if it gives us a survival and reproductive edge. It would not tell us truth! I think you are trying to reason with me and give me truth but if you posit an evolutionary process, your are just responding to a stimulus in a way that may help your survival chances but says nothing about whether it is the correct intellectual position. You have not given any mechanism for finding truth._


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Again I must confess I don't understand the question. You said "I don't believe there are absolutes where morals are concerned" and then you said "It's (God's?) actions prove to be less moral than many humans" How can there be a more or less moral if there are no absolute moral references? That seems to be like saying there is no such thing as light and then arguing over what thinks are brighter and darker.


Humans have coined the moral definition. Morals come from us and vary depending upon society,  culture, upbringing etc. 
I am judging like all humans do by what is Relative to me.
By absolute I , and I think we, are talking about a source more advanced or spiritually higher than humans. 

You didn't answer my questions so I'll ask  again.
Is the God of the bible, in your opinion, absolutely moral or relatively moral?...and why?


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> _*So you've elected to pursue discovering the uncaused cause, with nothing other than the suggestion of Aristotle (who got the idea from others before him). It seems natural to infer agency. There's pretty good evidence that we're evolved to do it, doesn't mean it's there.  I don't follow that claim at all.*_
> 
> Aristotle based it on a logical position, if you are claiming we don't have the intellect, logic and reason, why are you even stating your position? If we are evolved to a position then of course there is no reason to take it as truth, only a survival benefit. What is this pretty good evidence and how could I believe anyway unless I were evolved to accept it rather than to know it as truth?
> 
> _*An infinite number of permutations may have been tried. This one obviously produced us. *
> 
> I remember reading of a lady who one the lottery 3 times and authorities were on her quickly. They stated that when something statistically impossible happens anyway you know someone is gaming the system, it's just logical. We don't assume "oh well it just happened by chance".
> 
> Maybe. Why couldn't it be?
> 
> I don't believe in magic
> 
> *
> How do you sense this higher level of truth state? Is it part of an intellectual exercise? Is it because you've been exposed to the notion? Can you justify your position that there are absolute morals? I imagine it will be something like "I feel it. I just know it". Then "It's written in this bizarre book that I believe to be true because......." *
> 
> I don't think I've said what I believe other than in logic or reason for now. If you question a higher truth state why do you try to defend what you feel is true? Part of an intellectual exercise for you? But why would it matter if you can't then define truth or how to find it. If you can, do tell.
> 
> *William Lane Craig often says things like that but he never explains how it must certainly follow. Furthermore, he never examines the numerous other possibilities of what an agent, if one exists, could be like. It's like the one that he likes. *
> 
> I would love to examine the other possibilities and I mean that sincerely. What I'm saying is everyone keeps stumbling around morality, logic, reason, and like it or not a universe with certain specific properties. We keep assuming this a priori, but no one comes up with another source. Agreeably we resort to trying to get around things like absolute morals but that is really to cheat because at the root most of us hold that there are certain things that are absolutely wrong for all times, we just don't want to admit it because we are afraid of where that takes us. I believe in truth and I believe we can work to the most logical choices based on reason. However I'm not hearing a lot of good alternatives for why that would be so I assume others perhaps don't really believe in truth or how it can be known, and are focusing more on stimulus and why we respond the way we do. But how could you even rationally examine that?
> 
> *The idea of God is messy and too obscure as to even be useful to explain anything. It seems clear to a subscriber of a particular religion what God is like because they just accept without skepticism what their religion says about God. Now what would happen if you had to make your own one up? What would He/She be like? I imagine He/She would reflect modern morality and the advances in knowledge that have been made by secularism.*
> 
> Messy for you? If I made God up the being definitely wound not reflect our present cultural morality, but then what. If you are proposing that different cultures have different ideas of what God is or correct morals are and that proves there are no correct morals or a correct idea of God, that again is a logical errror. It would be like saying that every culture gives a different answer for what 2+2 is so no one is right, and there is no right answer. That is an invalid conclusion. It might be that everyone comes up with the wrong answer but that doesn't mean there is no correct answer. If it is absolute then one culture may have it right but they can't all be.
> 
> *Why not? You have a brain that evolved to turn over rocks and split atoms....I think that people that don't see agency haven't come to that conclusion because they seek non-agency. They come to that conclusion because they've found no evidence for it.
> *
> 
> Again I think you are stretching what you can conclude. We evolutionarily turn over rocks if it is genetically programmed to help us survive. Maybe we find a bug to eat. We would "conclude" things if it gives us a survival and reproductive edge. It would not tell us truth! I think you are trying to reason with me and give me truth but if you posit an evolutionary process, your are just responding to a stimulus in a way that may help your survival chances but says nothing about whether it is the correct intellectual position. You have not given any mechanism for finding truth._


_
What is the statistical probability of a god existing, and then having it be the God of the bible ?_


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> What is the statistical probability of a god existing, and then having it be the God of the bible ?



Since I believe in truth and the ability to know it- reason and logic, absolute morals, the value of each human life, and many other things, I start there. It helps narrow the field substantially.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Since I believe in truth and the ability to know it- reason and logic, absolute morals, the value of each human life, and many other things, I start there. It helps narrow the field substantially.


I'm sorry if I missed the numbers, care to repost them?
I cannot help but think that you would not have accepted such an answer as above from "us".


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> I'm sorry if I missed the numbers, care to repost them?
> I cannot help but think that you would not have accepted such an answer as above from "us".



I don't understand at all. I explained how I narrow the field and criteria I use to examine the options based mainly on logic and reason. I certainly would accept the same. I don't see you giving exact statistical measurements for your certainty there is no God and have no idea by what criteria you plan to do a statistical analysis and whether or not there is one? This isn't a mathematical analysis with a relevant p value, and you certainly haven't given this either. If you have a mathematical formulaic approach to analyze this please give it. You have a data base that will examine properties that by definition, at least of the JudeoChristian God, exists outside of the universe and therefore not available for examination using measurements of physical properties inside the universe and then you can run statistical analysis? I don't think your question even makes sense.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> I don't understand at all. I explained how I narrow the field and criteria I use to examine the options. I certainly would accept the same. I don't see you giving exact statistical measurements for your certainty there is no God and have no idea by what criteria you plan to do a statistical analysis on whether or not there is one? This isn't a mathematical analysis with a relevant p value, and you certainly haven't given this either. If you have a mathematical formulaic approach to analyze this please give it.


You mentioned the lady that hit the lottery 3 times and the statistical odds against that happening by chance.
What were you getting at?


I have narrowed my field by believing in the truth, and the ability to know it, logic and reason, relative morals, the value of human life and many other things, I start there for the belief in no god. It narrows the field considerably.

Now tell us how and why there is a god with absolute morals.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> I don't understand at all. I explained how I narrow the field and criteria I use to examine the options based mainly on logic and reason. I certainly would accept the same. I don't see you giving exact statistical measurements for your certainty there is no God and have no idea by what criteria you plan to do a statistical analysis and whether or not there is one? This isn't a mathematical analysis with a relevant p value, and you certainly haven't given this either. If you have a mathematical formulaic approach to analyze this please give it. You have a data base that will examine properties that by definition, at least of the JudeoChristian God, exists outside of the universe and therefore not available for examination using measurements of physical properties inside the universe and then you can run statistical analysis? I don't think your question even makes sense.



Oohhhh, an invisible entity that exists outside of our realm and is not available for examination ....

Kinda like a Jr high girlfriend that lives out of state....you wouldn't know her.....
At least with her there is a possibility of existence.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> You mentioned the lady that hit the lottery 3 times and the statistical odds against that happening by chance.
> What were you getting at?
> 
> 
> I have narrowed my field by believing in the truth, and the ability to know it, logic and reason, relative morals, the value of human life and many other things, I start there for the belief in no god. It narrows the field considerably.
> 
> Now tell us how and why there is a god with absolute morals.



Oh thanks. 1. It was a response to the statement "An infinite number of permutations may have been tried. This one obviously produced us." Usually people defend the fact that a universe existing and existing with just the right "settings" for life may "seem" statistically impossible but since it's here that is somehow proof that it happened randomly and we have no valid reason to question the improbability. I was comparing this to the lady winning the lottery 3 times and the fact that in that setting it seemed the logical conclusion that it wasn't possible and the authorities searched for an alternative explanation, that somehow the lady had "designed" a process to win. They therefore searched for another possibility, one that didn't require a blind faith that even though it seemed impossible that she kept getting all the numbers right, it must be true because "she had the winning numbers."

2. I didn't say how and why there is a God with absolute morals, I simply state that I believe there are absolute morals and although some believe there are none, most believe that there really are some (see previous comments above about genocide), and that leads to the question of what the source for this is.


----------



## outdooraddict

bullethead said:


> Oohhhh, an invisible entity that exists outside of our realm and is not available for examination ....
> 
> Kinda like a Jr high girlfriend that lives out of state....you wouldn't know her.....
> At least with her there is a possibility of existence.



I was sure you would love that... at least until you thought about the fact that the universe is finite, and therefore requires a cause that is OUTSIDE of the universe in order to start a universe, and therefore outside of scientific observation and measurement. I knew once you considered that you would realize that whatever started this universe, be it a rip in the fabric of reality or Stephen Hawking's shifting quark, or infinite universes that just happen not to be displayable, that you would realize that of course all theories about something outside of the universe can't be measured by tools in the universe. That's why logic and reason seem appropriate, observation and measurement can't go there.


----------



## RH Clark

bullethead said:


> Then why the participation with atheists and agnostics?
> The way I see it, this forum is for people who do question the bible and who do not believe in god  or any specific god to converse with people who are able to explain their beliefs in an apologetic way.
> The answer you give is great a few floors above, in here, it is our job to ask you to explain yourself, your god and your bible, when you make outlandish claims.
> In here, "God told me" is as good as "Yoda told me. All I'd like is for you to back it up. We know what you believe,  show us why it is irrefutable.



I'm fine with that, but you have to also understand that part of my faith is believing that the Bible is God's words to us. I can't prove to you that God exists any more than I can prove to you that love exists. Both have to be experienced rather than quantified. You won't find either if you don't believe in their existence and you aren't looking for them, but they are no less real to millions of people.


----------



## Israel

If I am an enigma, it must be only to some men.
The God who knows all, knows me, in particular, and there's nothing puzzling to Him about me, at all. In truth, in all man's ways, I am quite commonplace.

When, like a women's sewing circle so many gasped as though I had just plucked a big fat booger from my nose in saying "I don't see Hitler as the archetype of evil" there was little time to listen for a pin drop. 
"Did he say, Hitler is not evil?" 
"He must get that from reading his Bible"
"I think he said Hitler and a fat man who can't push himself away from the table are the same...let's try and glue him to Hitler and see what happens"
"It must be because his God is so much like Hitler"


"Because...Hitler is, by any observable standard, absolutely the most evil blue meany, and to even suggest (as I know he suggested, I heard it myself!) he is anything other...well...I never!"


But now ladies, let's hike our skirts and dip our toes in the cool waters of Lake Relativity for a few.
(Is he really calling us ladies?)
"Lemme try another emoticon on him...maybe he doesn't know he seems to like alphabet manipulation as much as any of us. Maybe more. What kind of dunce could be so..._unknowing of himself?_"

After all, we are reasonable _men_.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> I was sure you would love that... at least until you thought about the fact that the universe is finite, and therefore requires a cause that is OUTSIDE of the universe in order to start a universe, and therefore outside of scientific observation and measurement. I knew once you considered that you would realize that whatever started this universe, be it a rip in the fabric of realilty or Stephen Hawking's shifting quark, or infinite universes that just happen not to be displayable, that you would realize that of coure all theories about something outside of the universe can't be measured by tools in the universe. That's why logic and reason seem appropriate, observation and measurement can't go there.


Not knowing what existed before the popular Big Bang theory, an outside cause is not the only viable solution. If the current universe started from a small singular point it was still the universe in its entirety. It may have always been there waiting to expand. Or it is possible that another universe ended just before the current one started. It is possible we are on a universe that is inside of another universe.
Fact is I just don't know any more than you do. But pretending to know the God of the bible is the cause is a gross overstep.


----------



## bullethead

RH Clark said:


> I'm fine with that, but you have to also understand that part of my faith is believing that the Bible is God's words to us. I can't prove to you that God exists any more than I can prove to you that love exists. Both have to be experienced rather than quantified. You won't find either if you don't believe in their existence and you aren't looking for them, but they are no less real to millions of people.


Then you will have to agree 100% that your god is not unique because billions of other people use the same criteria as proof their gods exist too. 4,200+ religions in the world and the followers all experience their gods. 
I am trying to sort out even one that stands out from the others.


----------



## 660griz

outdooraddict said:


> This simply isn't correct. Time is exact (unless we are really going to delve into relativity) it's the clock that isn't accurate. The standard is absolute. A pound is 1.000000000etc pounds. The accuracy is dependent on the tool which is what you are really talking about and may be accurate to plus or minus 5% or described as to .95-1.05 lbs but a pound is still exactly a pound. If the load on your rifle is precise you will cloverleaf the bullets because they hit precisely on the target yet you may be way off the bullseye and not accurate compared to the bullseye standard. You may be all over the bullseye with a 1.5 inch spread and be less precise with the load but more accurate to the bullseye. BUT the bullseye is still exactly the bullseye, it isn't moving around. If your scope is loose, you may wobble all around the bullseye with your hits but the bullseye isn't moving. Your standard is exact, it is the limits of your tools that have the variability and inaccuracy or imprecision.



It is correct. A pound is a pound but how do you know it is a pound? You measure it. Geesh. 
A minute is a minute but how do you know? You measure it. To calibrate scales and clocks you need a standard. These standards are highly accurate but, NOT perfect. The entire point of this discussion. You cannot compare a pound to a pound without a (non-perfect) standard to compare it to. Google the accuracy of an atomic clock. 

Sorry for the derail folks. I will ignore future responses about standards.


----------



## 660griz

outdooraddict said:


> (see previous comments above about genocide), and that leads to the question of what the source for this is.



Evolution/adaptation
It is apparent that genocide wasn't necessarily always thought of as immoral.
This question was posted on debate.org. "Is there ever any justification, morally or legally, for genocide against a particular group?"
Almost 40% said yes. So much for absolute.


----------



## outdooraddict

660griz said:


> It is correct. A pound is a pound but how do you know it is a pound? You measure it. Geesh.
> A minute is a minute but how do you know? You measure it. To calibrate scales and clocks you need a standard. These standards are highly accurate but, NOT perfect. The entire point of this discussion. You cannot compare a pound to a pound without a (non-perfect) standard to compare it to. Google the accuracy of an atomic clock.
> 
> Sorry for the derail folks. I will ignore future responses about standards.




The TOOLS are imperfect not the standard. Standards don't have accuracy, tools do. I'm sorry you don't get that. Geesh

The reason it's pertinent is that if we don't even agree on the definition of an absolute standard for the physical properties then we never will agree on the nonphysical. To my way of thinking if the price tag is $1.00 and you tell the shop keeper you have a hand full of pennies that is about 100 plus or minus 5 pennies, they may or may not accept your accuracy but it either is or isn't 100 cents. If we don't agree on that we will never decide if maybe you were better of just grabbing the item and running.


----------



## outdooraddict

660griz said:


> Evolution/adaptation
> It is apparent that genocide wasn't necessarily always thought of as immoral.
> This question was posted on debate.org. "Is there ever any justification, morally or legally, for genocide against a particular group?"
> Almost 40% said yes. So much for absolute.



Absolute morality is not a vote, opinion or culture. You can debate whether or not it exists but you don't vote it in. IF 2+2 is 4 as an absolute, it really doesn't matter what you want to vote as most popular. If you are voting you are trying to get a consensus on the most popular relative morality. You are shifting the definition.


----------



## RH Clark

bullethead said:


> Then you will have to agree 100% that your god is not unique because billions of other people use the same criteria as proof their gods exist too. 4,200+ religions in the world and the followers all experience their gods.
> I am trying to sort out even one that stands out from the others.



Are you honestly seeking, or do you just doubt the concept of God equally among all religions? I believe that if you honestly seek for God ,you will find him, or rather he will open the door to you.

I studied other religions honestly seeking before my encounter with God.


----------



## WaltL1

outdooraddict said:


> Absolute morality is not a vote, opinion or culture. You can debate whether or not it exists but you don't vote it in. IF 2+2 is 4 as an absolute, it really doesn't matter what you want to vote as most popular. If you are voting you are trying to get a consensus on the most popular relative morality. You are shifting the definition.


Are you sure absolute morality is not a vote, opinion or culture? Think about it. 
Who/what would determine it to be absolute? 
And that being their opinion of what is absolute wouldn't that make it relative?
If your response is going to be well God determined it was absolute therefore that cancels out any other opinion, then you are back to proving there is a god, proving he is the final authority, proving these so calied absolute morals originated with him, proving
.....
You are putting the cart before the horse.
2+2 can be proven to equal 4. That's the difference.
What can be proven about morality is that it's relative..


----------



## outdooraddict

*Are you sure absolute morality is not a vote, opinion or culture? Think about it. *

"Absolutely". We can vote our opinions. We can vote on whether we believe there is an absolute morality, but we can't vote what it is any more than we can vote the speed of light. Absolute morality may not exist, it may not be knowable, but by definition it is not a vote.
*
Who/what would determine it to be absolute? *   Exactly

*And that being their opinion of what is absolute wouldn't that make it relativ*e? 

If it's not knowable, it would make it their opinion of what are the absolute morals, just like guessing how many jelly beans are in a jar, but there would still be a finite absolute answer to how many.

*If your response is going to be well God determined it was absolute therefore that cancels out any other opinion, then you are back to proving there is a god, proving he is the final authority, proving these so calied absolute morals originated with him, proving I keep discussing the topic of whether there are absolute morals. *

If the answer in each persons "opinion" is no there aren't absolute morals, then we can't go any further on that topic.


----------



## WaltL1

outdooraddict said:


> *Are you sure absolute morality is not a vote, opinion or culture? Think about it. *
> 
> "Absolutely". We can vote our opinions. We can vote on whether we believe there is an absolute morality, but we can't vote what it is any more than we can vote the speed of light. Absolute morality may not exist, it may not be knowable, but by definition it is not a vote.
> *
> Who/what would determine it to be absolute? *   Exactly
> 
> *And that being their opinion of what is absolute wouldn't that make it relativ*e?
> 
> If it's not knowable, it would make it their opinion of what are the absolute morals, just like guessing how many jelly beans are in a jar, but there would still be a finite absolute answer to how many.
> 
> *If your response is going to be well God determined it was absolute therefore that cancels out any other opinion, then you are back to proving there is a god, proving he is the final authority, proving these so calied absolute morals originated with him, proving I keep discussing the topic of whether there are absolute morals. *
> 
> If the answer in each persons "opinion" is no there aren't absolute morals, then we can't go any further on that topic.


It's not that each person's opinion that there aren't absolute morals are getting in the way.
It's that there is zero evidence/proof that there are absolute morals.
And overwhelming evidence and facts that morality is relative.
Anyway I'm glad we agree morals are relative.
Many of the Christians we discuss this subject with just stomp their feet, turn red and insist morals come from God.


----------



## bullethead

RH Clark said:


> Are you honestly seeking, or do you just doubt the concept of God equally among all religions? I believe that if you honestly seek for God ,you will find him, or rather he will open the door to you.
> 
> I studied other religions honestly seeking before my encounter with God.



Is religious study necessary to be found by a god?
Been there, done that. It didn't work out.
I have since been trying to find even just ONE person that can back up their claims to a god.
Other than the belief that they know a god, no one had been able to provide anything else. I couldn't either. So here I am.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> If I am an enigma, it must be only to some men.
> The God who knows all, knows me, in particular, and there's nothing puzzling to Him about me, at all. In truth, in all man's ways, I am quite commonplace.
> 
> When, like a women's sewing circle so many gasped as though I had just plucked a big fat booger from my nose in saying "I don't see Hitler as the archetype of evil" there was little time to listen for a pin drop.
> "Did he say, Hitler is not evil?"
> "He must get that from reading his Bible"
> "I think he said Hitler and a fat man who can't push himself away from the table are the same...let's try and glue him to Hitler and see what happens"
> "It must be because his God is so much like Hitler"
> 
> 
> "Because...Hitler is, by any observable standard, absolutely the most evil blue meany, and to even suggest (as I know he suggested, I heard it myself!) he is anything other...well...I never!"
> 
> 
> But now ladies, let's hike our skirts and dip our toes in the cool waters of Lake Relativity for a few.
> (Is he really calling us ladies?)
> "Lemme try another emoticon on him...maybe he doesn't know he seems to like alphabet manipulation as much as any of us. Maybe more. What kind of dunce could be so..._unknowing of himself?_"
> 
> After all, we are reasonable _men_.


When you are unable to hold a conversation, just ask, analyze and answer your own questions....yeah that's the ticket.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Absolute morality is not a vote, opinion or culture. You can debate whether or not it exists but you don't vote it in. IF 2+2 is 4 as an absolute, it really doesn't matter what you want to vote as most popular. If you are voting you are trying to get a consensus on the most popular relative morality. You are shifting the definition.


Given that nobody has provided any example of absolute morality, relative morality is all we have left.


----------



## RH Clark

bullethead said:


> Is religious study necessary to be found by a god?
> Been there, done that. It didn't work out.
> I have since been trying to find even just ONE person that can back up their claims to a god.
> Other than the belief that they know a god, no one had been able to provide anything else. I couldn't either. So here I am.



I'm definitely not saying you need a doctorate in theology. I would however encourage you to keep seeking, while possibly reading the gospels from the Bible. I would suggest starting with the gospel of John.

I would also encourage you to visit some more Christian churches. The best evidence for God is seeing what he has done in the lives of real people. Believe me though all denominations and all Christians certainly aren't the same. You will meet some kooks and some half crazy fanatics, and a bunch or Sunday morning hypocrites, but you may also meet some people who have sincerely been changed by God and are looking to share the love God has shown to them.


----------



## 660griz

outdooraddict said:


> The TOOLS are imperfect not the standard. Standards don't have accuracy, tools do. I'm sorry you don't get that. Geesh



I am sorry you don't understand the difference between standards and units of measurement.


----------



## 660griz

outdooraddict said:


> Absolute morality is not a vote, opinion or culture. You can debate whether or not it exists but you don't vote it in. IF 2+2 is 4 as an absolute, it really doesn't matter what you want to vote as most popular. If you are voting you are trying to get a consensus on the most popular relative morality. You are shifting the definition.


Morality is absolutely an opinion, vote, etc.
There is no absolute morality. Except in ones own culture and/or tight knit group.


----------



## bullethead

RH Clark said:


> I'm definitely not saying you need a doctorate in theology. I would however encourage you to keep seeking, while possibly reading the gospels from the Bible. I would suggest starting with the gospel of John.
> 
> I would also encourage you to visit some more Christian churches. The best evidence for God is seeing what he has done in the lives of real people. Believe me though all denominations and all Christians certainly aren't the same. You will meet some kooks and some half crazy fanatics, and a bunch or Sunday morning hypocrites, but you may also meet some people who have sincerely been changed by God and are looking to share the love God has shown to them.


I'm sure you may have missed my background  story but I am familiar with the gospels,  I was once a devout follower of the bible and JC.
I have met those examples of people within Christianity but I have also met those people regarding other religions.
What I am getting at is that nothing is unique. For every kook in Christianity there is a Buddhist kook too. For every person that swears Jesus reached out and plucked them from despair I have found a person of another faith that tells me the same story about their god saving them, both sides with equal conviction. Then the peculiar part is that I have met people who follow no god. They are just as kooky and or just as blessed and yet do not ask, seek or give credit to any sort of entity for their fortunate happenstances in life.
I am looking for the person that can offer something more than just the common and tired parlor tricks credited to a thousand gods. I want someone who actually can back up their claims of having a relationship with a real honest to goodness god. As big of a skeptic as I have become, I still have enough  brain to think that something so right, so wonderful, so pure and powerful as a god would not be so hard to produce. If a god wants my attention, what better than a god would know how to get it? 
It's not that I am not looking. It is because I just do not accept any old example that is found elsewhere within religion and outside of religion. For every miracle done and prayer answered credited to your god there is another person who worships a totally different god that has had the same results.

Oh there may be a god alright. The likes of which I'll never ever know. But I am darn sure it is nothing like what is portrayed in the bible or any other religion conjured up by man.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> I'm sure you may have missed my background  story but I am familiar with the gospels,  I was once a devout follower of the bible and JC.
> I have met those examples of people within Christianity but I have also met those people regarding other religions.
> What I am getting at is that nothing is unique. For every kook in Christianity there is a Buddhist kook too. For every person that swears Jesus reached out and plucked them from despair I have found a person of another faith that tells me the same story about their god saving them, both sides with equal conviction. Then the peculiar part is that I have met people who follow no god. They are just as kooky and or just as blessed and yet do not ask, seek or give credit to any sort of entity for their fortunate happenstances in life.
> I am looking for the person that can offer something more than just the common and tired parlor tricks credited to a thousand gods. I want someone who actually can back up their claims of having a relationship with a real honest to goodness god. As big of a skeptic as I have become, I still have enough  brain to think that something so right, so wonderful, so pure and powerful as a god would not be so hard to produce. If a god wants my attention, what better than a god would know how to get it?
> It's not that I am not looking. It is because I just do not accept any old example that is found elsewhere within religion and outside of religion. For every miracle done and prayer answered credited to your god there is another person who worships a totally different god that has had the same results.
> 
> Oh there may be a god alright. The likes of which I'll never ever know. But I am darn sure it is nothing like what is portrayed in the bible or any other religion conjured up by man.




We need some of this to happen.


----------



## 660griz

RH Clark said:


> but you may also meet some people who have sincerely been changed by God and are looking to share the love God has shown to them.



I have met folks that say they were cured by a drug. That 'drug' was actually a placebo.
Did the placebo cure them?


----------



## bullethead

My son is a school teacher, 6th grade history. He is a public school in Virginia and it is extremely multi cultural. One of his male students has a very hard time seeing the smart board clearly and clearly seeing the print in textbooks and on test papers. My son brought it up to the young man's father and suggested that possibly glasses are in order or at least an eye test. The father replied "He will be fine, all he has to do is think he wants to see better and blink until it is clear. Allah will make sure that it happens."
Still no glasses.


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> The father replied "He will be fine, all he has to do is think he wants to see better and blink until it is clear. Allah will make sure that it happens."
> Still no glasses.



This is sad and hilarious at the same time.


----------



## WaltL1

RH Clark said:


> I'm definitely not saying you need a doctorate in theology. I would however encourage you to keep seeking, while possibly reading the gospels from the Bible. I would suggest starting with the gospel of John.
> 
> I would also encourage you to visit some more Christian churches. The best evidence for God is seeing what he has done in the lives of real people. Believe me though all denominations and all Christians certainly aren't the same. You will meet some kooks and some half crazy fanatics, and a bunch or Sunday morning hypocrites, but you may also meet some people who have sincerely been changed by God and are looking to share the love God has shown to them.


So surely you would agree that positive change in the lives of people of ANY religion who attribute that change to their god has equally good evidence for the existence of their god right?


----------



## outdooraddict

660griz said:


> I am sorry you don't understand the difference between standards and units of measurement.



And might I offer you the same condolences in regards to your comprehension of absolute values vs the tools that measure values. I don't even know how you could define accuracy if you don't know that you need an absolute to compare it to. Oh well


----------



## outdooraddict

660griz said:


> Morality is absolutely an opinion, vote, etc.
> There is no absolute morality. Except in ones own culture and/or tight knit group.



Just chuckling at your choice of words. Is morality absolutely relative (an opinion) or relatively absolute. Jumbo shrimp, rap music


----------



## bullethead

660griz said:


> This is sad and hilarious at the same time.


Right!!!!!????!!!!


----------



## ambush80

outdooraddict said:


> And might I offer you the same condolences in regards to your comprehension of absolute values vs the tools that measure values. I don't even know how you could define accuracy if you don't know that you need an absolute to compare it to. Oh well



That you think you have a main line into what absolute anything is is funny.  Particularly if you think it's linked to the notion of a theoretical being who gets lonely and jealous.  

If you were simply a deist and suggested that you believe that an unknown force might be responsible for everything in the known universe that's one thing.  To claim that this being revealed himself to you, in a bizarre book that's quite repulsive in some parts, is extra weird.  Don't you see that?  

Even if what you did is what you say you did: assumed a moral truth, doesn't it seem strange to you where that moral standard came from; where you were  led? Be objective about what this standard that you've chosen advocates for. Be objective about how all the other standards that people have believed in have come to be and have passed into antiquity.  Why did you latch onto this one?  I'm certain that it won't be because of exaustive process of reason.  At it's core it's some kind of very personal revelation, a ***** of the heart, and you can't explain it to me and I can't understand it unless I experience it myself.  

Garbage.  All day every day.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> That you think you have a main line into what absolute anything is is funny.  Particularly if you think it's linked to the notion of a theoretical being who gets lonely and jealous.
> 
> If you were simply a deist and suggested that you believe that an unknown force might be responsible for everything in the known universe that's one thing.  To claim that this being revealed himself to you, in a bizarre book that's quite repulsive in some parts, is extra weird.  Don't you see that?
> 
> Even if what you did is what you say you did: assumed a moral truth, doesn't it seem strange to you where that moral standard came from; where you were  led? Be objective about what this standard that you've chosen advocates for. Be objective about how all the other standards that people have believed in have come to be and have passed into antiquity.  Why did you latch onto this one?  I'm certain that it won't be because of exaustive process of reason.  At it's core it's some kind of very personal revelation, a ***** of the heart, and you can't explain it to me and I can't understand it unless I experience it myself.
> 
> Garbage.  All day every day.



Lol. 

This forum used to be fun, or at least for some reason I thought it was.


----------



## outdooraddict

ambush80 said:


> That you think you have a main line into what absolute anything is is funny.  Particularly if you think it's linked to the notion of a theoretical being who gets lonely and jealous.
> 
> If you were simply a deist and suggested that you believe that an unknown force might be responsible for everything in the known universe that's one thing.  To claim that this being revealed himself to you, in a bizarre book that's quite repulsive in some parts, is extra weird.  Don't you see that?
> 
> Even if what you did is what you say you did: assumed a moral truth, doesn't it seem strange to you where that moral standard came from; where you were  led? Be objective about what this standard that you've chosen advocates for. Be objective about how all the other standards that people have believed in have come to be and have passed into antiquity.  Why did you latch onto this one?  I'm certain that it won't be because of exaustive process of reason.  At it's core it's some kind of very personal revelation, a ***** of the heart, and you can't explain it to me and I can't understand it unless I experience it myself.
> 
> Garbage.  All day every day.



Wow that was a bit rambling and hostile. Seems maybe you put a few independent concepts together in some straw man fallacy and tried to knock him down. And all that attached to our debate on whether such things as time, weight, measurements and money have an absolute standard and what the accuracy of tools means. I certainly can't figure out what you are talking about when you are using the word "standard" in your context. Are you talking about an idea of morals, are you referring to absolute morals, are you talking about something unrelated? What are you talking about that passed in to antiquity, who said something about personal revelation? Sometime back I said if individuals don't believe there are absolutely morals then the discussion is obviously over for looking for a source. Maybe you were just pulling a bunch of independent concepts together from other peoples various posts. Were you really presenting something you think was exhaustive reason, sounded a little like a temper tantrum.


----------



## outdooraddict

stringmusic said:


> Lol.
> 
> This forum used to be fun, or at least for some reason I thought it was.



Yeah, didn't mean to cause anger instead of reason, kinda takes the fun out. Oh well, I probably should sign off for another year.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> I'm sure you may have missed my background  story but I am familiar with the gospels,  I was once a devout follower of the bible and JC.
> I have met those examples of people within Christianity but I have also met those people regarding other religions.
> What I am getting at is that nothing is unique. For every kook in Christianity there is a Buddhist kook too. For every person that swears Jesus reached out and plucked them from despair I have found a person of another faith that tells me the same story about their god saving them, both sides with equal conviction. Then the peculiar part is that I have met people who follow no god. They are just as kooky and or just as blessed and yet do not ask, seek or give credit to any sort of entity for their fortunate happenstances in life.
> I am looking for the person that can offer something more than just the common and tired parlor tricks credited to a thousand gods. I want someone who actually can back up their claims of having a relationship with a real honest to goodness god. As big of a skeptic as I have become, I still have enough  brain to think that something so right, so wonderful, so pure and powerful as a god would not be so hard to produce. If a god wants my attention, what better than a god would know how to get it?
> It's not that I am not looking. It is because I just do not accept any old example that is found elsewhere within religion and outside of religion. For every miracle done and prayer answered credited to your god there is another person who worships a totally different god that has had the same results.
> 
> Oh there may be a god alright. The likes of which I'll never ever know. But I am darn sure it is nothing like what is portrayed in the bible or any other religion conjured up by man.



Where did you get that idea? God _wants_ your attention.


----------



## stringmusic

outdooraddict said:


> Yeah, didn't mean to cause anger instead of reason, kinda takes the fun out. Oh well, I probably should sign off for another year.



I hope not, your arguments are well thought out and interesting. You should stick around. I've been making the same arguments you have in this thread for years on this forum, but you seem to put it in much better words than I'm able to.

It just seems like its hard for many here to stay on a single topic at one time. That, along with the round about ad hominem attacks get old real quick too.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Where did you get that idea? God _wants_ your attention.



Post #767 sent me in that direction 
Or
Where do you get the idea that your god doesn't want my attention? Where do you get the idea that another god is not interested in getting my attention?
Did I specify which god?

Izzy, please be as clear and concise with this answer as you were with your question.


----------



## bullethead

stringmusic said:


> Lol.
> 
> This forum used to be fun, or at least for some reason I thought it was.



You sound just like the kid in the Bad News Bears that sat outside the fence smoking cigarettes while telling all the players how lame the game was, but secretly wished he played.
He at least could play ball.


----------



## Big7

BUMP..  TTT... HIT... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Every day until the majikkkkk number 1000.

Then maybe this will "go away"..


----------



## gemcgrew

outdooraddict said:


> And might I offer you the same condolences in regards to your comprehension of absolute values vs the tools that measure values. I don't even know how you could define accuracy if you don't know that you need an absolute to compare it to. Oh well


I see your argument this way...

Unless X is true, you can't account for Y.

It is on you to show that absolute is really necessary to account for accuracy.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Post #767 sent me in that direction
> Or
> Where do you get the idea that your god doesn't want my attention? Where do you get the idea that another god is not interested in getting my attention?
> Did I specify which god?
> 
> Izzy, please be as clear and concise with this answer as you were with your question.



I would be wrong to answer for another man's post, if indeed the responsibility is "on" that other man. But your inference may have nothing to do with anything he may have sought to convey...that you would call his implication.

In your testimony, such as it is, you declare:


> I'm sure you may have missed my background story but I am familiar with the gospels, I was once a devout follower of the bible and JC.



Who told you you were devout?

Without needing to, other than for the sake of appearing less enigmatic, (if that be a stumbling block of my affection and merely an affectation of my vanity) may you find nothing in that question of my impedance.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> I would be wrong to answer for another man's post, if indeed the responsibility is "on" that other man. But your inference may have nothing to do with anything he may have sought to convey...that you would call his implication.
> 
> In your testimony, such as it is, you declare:
> 
> 
> Who told you you were devout?
> 
> Without needing to, other than for the sake of appearing less enigmatic, (if that be a stumbling block of my affection and merely an affectation of my vanity) may you find nothing in that question of my impedance.


Mirriam-Webster confirmed my level of faith.

Who told you you are a christian?
Who told you you believe in god?

Stop with your nonsense already. Please


----------



## 660griz

outdooraddict said:


> And might I offer you the same condolences in regards to your comprehension of absolute values vs the tools that measure values. I don't even know how you could define accuracy if you don't know that you need an absolute to compare it to. Oh well



You are chuckling at my comprehension of absolute values? Look up the definition of absolute values. 
I will end my part of this futile discussion with that.


----------



## outdooraddict

Already posted #713- "In the fields of science, engineering and statistics, the accuracy of a measurement system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity to that quantity's *true value*. The precision of a measurement system, related to reproducibility and repeatability, is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results" So I'll quit too


----------



## outdooraddict

Also, I swear I gotta get off the site in general, too addicting and I gotta work all weekend. I would like to make this comment and I don't see (expect, comprehend) how it would be controversial. In many of the comments I think there are a lot of logical errors- straw man fallacy,  non sequiturs, and especially my favorite- self refuting arguments. However, if you want an interesting intellectual exercise just scan that last 3 pages and look at how many different ways/definitions certain words are used: belief, know, absolute, relative, science, morals, right, wrong, garbage, value, and pick a few more. I committed the error a few pages back when identified murder as a possible violation of an absolute moral and I totally know better than that- it conjures up everything from taking a human life for personal pleasure, to discussion of abortion, capital punishment, military actions, eating meat, etc. That was stupid of me without defining my terms but in my defense I had a couple of glasses of wine.

Just take when someone said "Morality is absolutely an opinion". I think that sentence is fair and not a self defeating argument. It could be restated "morality is absolutely relative" or "absolutely not absolute", but the thing is the writer used the idea of absolute in 2 different ways. I think it's why poetry gives me a fit, I usually need clear definitions. (To be honest, I think there is a different problem with that sentence, I think it was meant to say "determining what ideas exist that could be morals to apply to behaviors" is an opinion, not whether or not that "the idea of morality" is an opinion, but anyway)

This has been fun until you step on someone's "beliefs" (I'll let you define) whether they are religious (you define) atheistic or agnostic. Then folks turn from intellectual to taking cheap shots, like the bad news bears thing. 

Anyway I'm out. Thanks.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Also, I swear I gotta get off the site in general, too addicting and I gotta work all weekend. I would like to make this comment and I don't see (expect, comprehend) how it would be controversial. In many of the comments I think there are a lot of logical errors- straw man fallacy,  non sequiturs, and especially my favorite- self refuting arguments. However, if you want an interesting intellectual exercise just scan that last 3 pages and look at how many different ways/definitions certain words are used: belief, know, absolute, relative, science, morals, right, wrong, garbage, value, and pick a few more. I committed the error a few pages back when identified murder as a possible violation of an absolute moral and I totally know better than that- it conjures up everything from taking a human life for personal pleasure, to discussion of abortion, capital punishment, military actions, eating meat, etc. That was stupid of me without defining my terms but in my defense I had a couple of glasses of wine.
> 
> Just take when someone said "Morality is absolutely an opinion". I think that sentence is fair and not a self defeating argument. It could be restated "morality is absolutely relative" or "absolutely not absolute", but the thing is the writer used the idea of absolute in 2 different ways. I think it's why poetry gives me a fit, I usually need clear definitions. (To be honest, I think there is a different problem with that sentence, I think it was meant to say "determining what ideas exist that could be morals to apply to behaviors" is an opinion, not whether or not that "the idea of morality" is an opinion, but anyway)
> 
> This has been fun until you step on someone's "beliefs" (I'll let you define) whether they are religious (you define) atheistic or agnostic. Then folks turn from intellectual to taking cheap shots, like the bad news bears thing.
> 
> Anyway I'm out. Thanks.



Bad news bears thing....
String pops in here to add nothing to the conversation except to say that this forum used to be fun, or at least he thought it was.
He should have started a new thread for that bit of info because it has nothing to do with what we were talking about. It was nothing but a cheap shot.
My comment was not a cheap shot but an analogy. He hangs around to say how he doesn't like hanging around but obviously wants to hang around.


----------



## bullethead

outdooraddict said:


> Also, I swear I gotta get off the site in general, too addicting and I gotta work all weekend. I would like to make this comment and I don't see (expect, comprehend) how it would be controversial. In many of the comments I think there are a lot of logical errors- straw man fallacy,  non sequiturs, and especially my favorite- self refuting arguments. However, if you want an interesting intellectual exercise just scan that last 3 pages and look at how many different ways/definitions certain words are used: belief, know, absolute, relative, science, morals, right, wrong, garbage, value, and pick a few more. I committed the error a few pages back when identified murder as a possible violation of an absolute moral and I totally know better than that- it conjures up everything from taking a human life for personal pleasure, to discussion of abortion, capital punishment, military actions, eating meat, etc. That was stupid of me without defining my terms but in my defense I had a couple of glasses of wine.
> 
> Just take when someone said "Morality is absolutely an opinion". I think that sentence is fair and not a self defeating argument. It could be restated "morality is absolutely relative" or "absolutely not absolute", but the thing is the writer used the idea of absolute in 2 different ways. I think it's why poetry gives me a fit, I usually need clear definitions. (To be honest, I think there is a different problem with that sentence, I think it was meant to say "determining what ideas exist that could be morals to apply to behaviors" is an opinion, not whether or not that "the idea of morality" is an opinion, but anyway)
> 
> This has been fun until you step on someone's "beliefs" (I'll let you define) whether they are religious (you define) atheistic or agnostic. Then folks turn from intellectual to taking cheap shots, like the bad news bears thing.
> 
> Anyway I'm out. Thanks.



How much of the last 3 pages met your criteria?

And other than wine, what might be some acceptable excuses that pardon the replies that did not meet your expectations?


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> Mirriam-Webster confirmed my level of faith.
> 
> Who told you you are a christian?
> Who told you you believe in god?
> 
> Stop with your nonsense already. Please



Yes.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Yes.


Highlight the entire reply and address it all. Why do you avoid the questions I asked you and cherry pick?


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Yes.


Is what I want to know.


----------



## Israel

For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.


Plead the 5th, figures.


----------



## Big7

Bump.. Looking 1000


----------



## Artfuldodger

Free will granted from a God who predestines.


----------



## bullethead

Big7 said:


> Bump.. Looking 1000



Cmon 1000, can't wait to start part II


----------



## Big7

bullethead said:


> Cmon 1000, can't wait to start part II



Just a few thoughts.

1) No such thing as predestination.
(Manufactured by man, during reformation)

2) God gave you a mind, free will and hopefully
a brain. (The rest is up to you)

3) No such thing as an "atheist" in a fox hole.


----------



## Israel

Big7 said:


> Just a few thoughts.
> 
> 1) No such thing as predestination.
> (Manufactured by man, during reformation)
> 
> 2) God gave you a mind, free will and hopefully
> a brain. (The rest is up to you)
> 
> 3) No such thing as an "atheist" in a fox hole.




What is free will?
What is free?
Who is free?

Is this one free?
Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, _Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
_
In "what" is he a servant/slave? Can he will himself to "not sin"?
Tell me, who is free? What is free?


----------



## bullethead

Big7 said:


> Just a few thoughts.
> 
> 1) No such thing as predestination.
> (Manufactured by man, during reformation)
> 
> 2) God gave you a mind, free will and hopefully
> a brain. (The rest is up to you)
> 
> 3) No such thing as an "atheist" in a fox hole.



We agree on thought #1


----------



## ambush80

Big7 said:


> Just a few thoughts.
> 
> 
> 3) No such thing as an "atheist" in a fox hole.



http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/helpbuildthewall/

http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/

http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/I_Was_an_Atheist_in_a_Foxhole


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/helpbuildthewall/
> 
> http://militaryatheists.org/atheists-in-foxholes/
> 
> http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/I_Was_an_Atheist_in_a_Foxhole



Don't go interjecting facts into the thread, it ruins the fantasy aspect of people's beliefs.


----------



## hummerpoo

Big7 said:


> Just a few thoughts.
> 
> 1) No such thing as predestination.
> (Manufactured by man, during reformation)
> 
> 2) God gave you a mind, free will and hopefully
> a brain. (The rest is up to you)
> 
> 3) No such thing as an "atheist" in a fox hole.



I suppose that explains most of, so called, predestination doctrine is based on the theology of St. Augustine.


----------

