# Jesus Can't Be God



## dexrusjak (May 3, 2012)

This one REALLY bothered me when I was a Christian...

The Christian doctrine of God's nature describes him as eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc.  In order for God to be omniscient, he would have to know everything.  EVERYTHING.  If there is one thing that god doesn't know, just one, then he is not omniscient and therefore cannot be God.

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in Heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the father."  Mark 13:32

The Bible states that there is something Jesus doesn't know. Therefore, he is not omniscient.  Therefore, he cannot be God.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 3, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> The Bible states that there is something Jesus doesn't know. Therefore, he is not omniscient.  Therefore, he cannot be God.



... the Father.  He is not God the Father, and He is not God the Holy Spirit.  Jesus is God the Son.


----------



## dexrusjak (May 3, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... the Father.  He is not God the Father, and He is not God the Holy Spirit.  Jesus is God the Son.



Incorrect.  God (by definition) is all-knowing.  Jesus is not all-knowing.  Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.  Try again.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 3, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> Incorrect.  God (by definition) is all-knowing.  Jesus is not all-knowing.  Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.  Try again.



OK, so you're a Unitarian.  Since I don't have a lot of interest in re-arguing Nicea, more power to ya.


----------



## dexrusjak (May 3, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, so you're a Unitarian.  Since I don't have a lot of interest in re-arguing Nicea, more power to ya.



No, I'm an atheist.  There is no god, but even if there were, Jesus couldn't be god.  Unless you don't believe the Bible, of course.  Which is fine by me.


----------



## atlashunter (May 3, 2012)

They are three different parts of one god but one of them knows more than the other.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 4, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> No, I'm an atheist.



I know.  My point is that the God you don't believe in is the Unitarian one.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 4, 2012)

For me, Mark 13:32 is a demonstration that  Jesus Christ is exactly who and what he claims to be, both God and man. As a man, he was no more omniscient than he was omnipotent or omnipresent. When he hungered, it was not God who hungered, but man. When he died, it was not God who died, but man. 

Sometimes he speaks of himself as a man (as here), and sometimes he speaks of himself as God, in order to show that he is fully both.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 4, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Sometimes he speaks of himself as a man (as here), and sometimes he speaks of himself as God, in order to show that he is fully both.


----------



## stringmusic (May 4, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I know.  My point is that the God you don't believe in is the Unitarian one.


----------



## dexrusjak (May 4, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I know.  My point is that the God you don't believe in is the Unitarian one.



Correct.  I don't believe in the Unitarian god.  I also don't believe in the ancient Hebrew god of war...this Yahweh character.


----------



## dexrusjak (May 4, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> For me, Mark 13:32 is a demonstration that  Jesus Christ is exactly who and what he claims to be, both God and man. As a man, he was no more omniscient than he was omnipotent or omnipresent. When he hungered, it was not God who hungered, but man. When he died, it was not God who died, but man.
> 
> Sometimes he speaks of himself as a man (as here), and sometimes he speaks of himself as God, in order to show that he is fully both.



So, essentially you're saying that Jesus has two brains.  One brain is divine and knows everything.  The other brain is human and does not know everything.  Sometimes Jesus taps into one, sometimes he taps into the other.  

It also seems as if you claim that he had the same physical duality.  How do we know that when he was crucified he didn't tap into his divine physical body which, conceivably, feels no pain.  That would make his death a whole lot less impressive.  How do we know he felt any pain at all?  Maybe he was faking it.


----------



## atlashunter (May 4, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> So, essentially you're saying that Jesus has two brains.  One brain is divine and knows everything.  The other brain is human and does not know everything.  Sometimes Jesus taps into one, sometimes he taps into the other.
> 
> It also seems as if you claim that he had the same physical duality.  How do we know that when he was crucified he didn't tap into his divine physical body which, conceivably, feels no pain.  That would make his death a whole lot less impressive.  How do we know he felt any pain at all?  Maybe he was faking it.



Doesn't really matter since he was sacrificing himself to himself right?


----------



## stringmusic (May 4, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Doesn't really matter since he was sacrificing himself to himself right?


C'mon Atlas, you know better than that.....



centerpin fan said:


> ... the Father.  He is not God the Father, and He is not God the Holy Spirit.  Jesus is God the Son.


----------



## atlashunter (May 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> C'mon Atlas, you know better than that.....



All the same god though right? You're not a polytheist are you?


----------



## stringmusic (May 4, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> All the same god though right?


Yes, but three parts


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> Correct.  I don't believe in the Unitarian god.  I also don't believe in the ancient Hebrew god of war...this Yahweh character.


Hey Dex, when you were Christian in your beliefs, were you raised trinitarian?


----------



## atlashunter (May 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, but three parts



Ok, sacrificing part of himself to the other part of himself.


----------



## Michael F. Gray (May 4, 2012)

FOOLISHNESS !!! If I really thought you believed what you are posting it might be worth the time to reply. I've seen enough. Grow up.


----------



## dexrusjak (May 4, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Dex, when you were Christian in your beliefs, were you raised trinitarian?



I was indeed.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 4, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> So, essentially you're saying that Jesus has two brains.  One brain is divine and knows everything.  The other brain is human and does not know everything.  Sometimes Jesus taps into one, sometimes he taps into the other.


I am saying he was fully both, God and man. As God he said to his disciples, "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth," though no one had informed him of Lazarus’ death. When he came to Bethany, he asked as a man, "Where have ye laid him?" The same is true in Mark 13:32. As the Son of God, he knew and always has known the precise second of his second advent. But as the Son of man, he was ignorant of it.


dexrusjak said:


> How do we know that when he was crucified he didn't tap into his divine physical body which, conceivably, feels no pain.


The suffering was necessary. Justice demanded it. (1 Peter 3:18) If Christ did not satisfy the wrath of God in your stead, you will satisfy it.


dexrusjak said:


> Maybe he was faking it.


Or perhaps...


dexrusjak said:


> This one REALLY bothered me when I was a Christian...


----------



## dexrusjak (May 4, 2012)

Michael F. Gray said:


> FOOLISHNESS !!! If I really thought you believed what you are posting it might be worth the time to reply. I've seen enough. Grow up.



I know, right?  Believing that one god can be three gods while at the same time being only one god.  On top of that, one of the three gods who are really one god became one man while still being one god and three gods at the same time.  Pure foolishness!


----------



## dexrusjak (May 4, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I am saying he was fully both, God and man.



That strikes me as one of those things Christians say they believe because they know they're supposed to believe it, but the don't really understand it.  Please explain to me how Jesus can be FULLY god and man, at the same time.  Either he was god, or he was man.  Maybe in some weird Herculean way he was part god and part man.  But 100% + 100% =/= 100%.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 4, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> That strikes me as one of those things Christians say they believe because they know they're supposed to believe it, but the don't really understand it.



I understand it because I can't understand it any other way. If I was you, I wouldn't believe it either.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 4, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> I was indeed.


The Unitarian faith is much more platible. Even so, Talking donkeys, burning bush, not something that is an easy sell.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 4, 2012)

There is a reason that the Trininty is so difficult to wrap our brains around.

It is because it is a divine concept, and we are not divine.


----------



## atlashunter (May 4, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> There is a reason that the Trininty is so difficult to wrap our brains around.
> 
> It is because it is a divine concept, and we are not divine.



Yep, sort of like a square circle.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 4, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Yep, sort of like a square circle.



Yes. Just like that.


----------



## Asath (May 5, 2012)

“ . . . He is not God the Father, and He is not God the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God the Son.”

You see how clever that is?

They ’Believe’ in the ONE GOD, above whom no other God can be raised . . . .

Then they split the poor fella in THREE!

You can’t buy that sort of thing . . .   They condemn the polytheists,  then emulate them, by making their ONE GOD into whichever of the three distinct personalities they have invented and wish to assign to whatever topic may arise.  It is an act of pure rationalizing, schizophrenic genius!

Nobody but them can be right, because nobody else understands that ONE is actually THREE!  

Now, I can understand why this idea might bruise a normal brain, but you have to bear with me here, because it is far too complex for us commoners – The idea put forward is that God, the Father, was that really mean fella who was perfect in all regards, and Created all of this out of nothing – but then repented of His perfection, and drowned everybody and everything, so as to start over.  But AFTER starting over, leaving us all as children of Noah, He still saw fit to smite us left and right, depending on who we were. (The Book doesn’t mention most of the people on Earth at the time, including all of China, which was far more advanced than the folks who wrote this mess, and far more populated as well, at the time, but someone has an excuse for that as well, just ask them . . . )

At a certain point, this God the Father seems to have decided to MAKE HIMSELF KNOWN.  But only to the few desert dwellers, again ignoring everyone else.  He chose to do this by knocking up a human woman, then by forgetting about the Son He sired for about thirty years, then putting on a spectacular three year long smoke-show culminating in the gruesome death of his OWN SON!  Let THAT be a lesson to you!

Well, that’s the story, anyway.  

So we start with the story of the GOD of all creation – the FATHER.  And that isn’t gripping the public with the control-freak instinct of the leaders, largely because it has been done to death by this point, and folks have heard that line before.  So they divided their ONE GOD unto two, and proposed the Son, who is similarly magical, but somehow compellingly Human.  This bit started to strike a chord, and made a decent compromise – God was both!  He was Eternal and Omnipotent, but one part of him was just like YOU!  Human!

But that wore off before the first question was asked, and the control-freaks knew it, so they were forced to sub-divide their ONE TRUE GOD yet again – and the only way to resolve the problems was to propose something so odd, so utterly irrational, that it made all of the foregoing assertions seem downright sane – The HOLY GHOST!



Who knew?  One can scarcely imagine the sales pitch – “Buy OUR GOD and we’ll toss in TWO MORE – Free!”

$19.95, plus shipping and handling, and ten percent of your income, for life, as a tithe.

Pick out your own God, among the three we have on offer, (which is actually, mysteriously, only ONE), and leave your money on our doorstep, or be doomed . . .


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 5, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> There is a reason that the Trininty is so difficult to wrap our brains around.
> 
> It is because it is a divine concept, and we are not divine.


What if I am a child and not old enough to comprehend it, the trinity. What I have observed is that 95% of new believers come into the faith believing Jesus is a man. Only after being in church do they get doctrinized.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 5, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> So, essentially you're saying that Jesus has two brains.



No, that was Steve Martin.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 5, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> What if I am a child and not old enough to comprehend it, the trinity.



I'm 48, and I don't completely comprehend it.


----------



## Asath (May 6, 2012)

Has it crossed your mind that you aren’t supposed to?  

It was deliberately designed to be incomprehensible, and to keep the ‘Believers’ confused, while mysteriously providing a ready answer to everything.  

The Priests, in every system since the beginning,  not just your own, have never done anything else but take the popular unknowns and superstitions of the local tribe and turn it to their own advantage.  Religious ‘leaders’ are the original con men, and they have done it so well that not a one of them has ever missed a meal, despite having never done a day of actual work.

P.T. Barnum keeps coming to mind . . .


----------



## Mako22 (May 6, 2012)

I was an atheist and had never been to church a day in my life when I met a man who told me about Christ. For over 20 years now I have been a Christian and I could not stop being one if I tried. Your un-belief doesn't change a thing. I'm still going to heaven and you are still going to "you know where" if you don't repent and believe.


----------



## rejfoxtrot (May 6, 2012)

I'm doomed dex's quote is making me question my beliefs. In fact I don't know if i'm going to go to church with my wife in 30minutes.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 6, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> There is a reason that the Trininty is so difficult to wrap our brains around.
> 
> It is because it is a divine concept, and we are not divine.



I wonder why the Trinity belief is followed by more Christians than Oneness. Since we as Christians believe in only one God it would stand to reason not to divide him into three.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 6, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder why the Trinity belief is followed by more Christians than Oneness. Since we as Christians believe in only one God it would stand to reason not to divide him into three.


When Constantine converted to that still evolving belief now known as the trinity, there was the largest number of converts ever. It became very popular to share his beliefs. For many reasons. Favor for one but mostly because it was made a capital offense to believe anything else. Punishable by death. All opposing writings were burnt. Anyone found not to have labeled, endorsed literature was found guilty.It was the time of the mark taking


----------



## Asath (May 7, 2012)

So, if you think it through, the basic idea here isn’t the one in the thread title – Jesus Can be God.  If you want.

But by the same evidence – Belief alone – my lawnmower can ALSO be God.  

I need only Believe it to be true.  

For me, GOD is a birdfeeder that endlessly replenishes itself – miraculously – and because you cannot prove that it isn’t true, then it is.


----------



## fish hawk (May 7, 2012)

Asath said:


> For me, GOD is a birdfeeder that endlessly replenishes itself – miraculously – and because you cannot prove that it isn’t true, then it is.


So you worship bird feeders???


----------



## fish hawk (May 7, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder why the Trinity belief is followed by more Christians than Oneness. Since we as Christians believe in only one God it would stand to reason not to divide him into three.



Thats where your wrong,sorry.The Bible doesn't teach that there are three separate gods,but that it's one God existing in three Persons.Compare it to water You see, water can be a gas, a liquid or a solid - and yet it is still water........scripture backs it up, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, just not here.


----------



## TheBishop (May 7, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Thats where your wrong,sorry.The Bible doesn't teach that there are three separate gods,but that it's one God existing in three Persons.Compare it to water You see, water can be a gas, a liquid or a solid - and yet it is still water........scripture backs it up, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, just not here.



But its still water. The chemical compound is still H2O.  So god did sacrifice himself to himself.  An if it was a god that was on that cross, it really was not a sacrifice but just an over eloborate show.


----------



## atlashunter (May 7, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> But its still water. The chemical compound is still H2O.  So god did sacrifice himself to himself.  An if it was a god that was on that cross, it really was not a sacrifice but just an over eloborate show.



And it also takes us back to the original problem of God being omniscient but not Jesus.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 7, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> When Constantine converted to that still evolving belief now known as the trinity, there was the largest number of converts ever. It became very popular to share his beliefs.



I think you’re ascribing too much malice to Constantine.  He was a politician and just wanted this issue to go away because it was dividing the empire.  From what I've read on the subject, I don't think he really cared which side "won", just as long as someone did.  In fact, his understanding of the entire Trinity debate was rudimentary at best, since he was no theologian.  Also, Constantine was very close to Eusebius, who had Arian leanings.  I think you could argue that Constantine did, as well. 



1gr8bldr said:


> Favor for one but mostly because it was made a capital offense to believe anything else. Punishable by death. All opposing writings were burnt. Anyone found not to have labeled, endorsed literature was found guilty.



A lot of good that did.  Arianism lived on.  In 587, a Western church council added a phrase to the Nicene Creed (the “filoque”) in an effort to combat Arianism.  The teaching still survives today, mostly among group’s like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 7, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I think you’re ascribing too much malice to Constantine.  He was a politician and just wanted this issue to go away because it was dividing the empire.  From what I've read on the subject, I don't think he really cared which side "won", just as long as someone did.  In fact, his understanding of the entire Trinity debate was rudimentary at best, since he was no theologian.  Also, Constantine was very close to Eusebius, who had Arian leanings.  I think you could argue that Constantine did, as well.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of good that did.  Arianism lived on.  In 587, a Western church council added a phrase to the Nicene Creed (the “filoque”) in an effort to combat Arianism.  The teaching still survives today, mostly among group’s like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.


Constantine did not care either way but decided that his council would be the final word. Arius was banished to somewhere where he met Constantines sister. Arius found favor with her and explained his views to her. through this relationship, Constantine heard Arius's views without the clamor of the other crowd or the disturbance of Saint Nic and his actions. He decided to reinstate Arius, unexcommunicate him. But the day before, or was it the morning of, he was poisioned and was never officially reunited. Eusebius reminded me of the movie, "Fist full of dollars". He was like a lizard that changed colors wherever it benefited him


----------



## Foxfire (May 7, 2012)

Go to www.wls.wels.net
Click on essay file (located toward top of Screen).
Click on Authors.
Click on W.
Find Waterstradt, David.
Paper entitled: "Who Do You Say I Am"?


Foxfire/Y2KZ71


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 7, 2012)

Written by a trinitarian by reverse engineering. pg2 he writes that the Arian view arose in the 4th century. Wrong. 2nd century but came to a head in the early third century. He writes "The churches answer is found in the words of the Nicene Creed" LOL It comes from the scriptures, not unbiblical terms like Hypostatic union, incarnation, etc. He writes "Athanius was the greatest of all the gifts to the NT church" This is just proof that this is not the gospel first entrusted to the saints because it was evolving. He was argueing over scriptures exactly like we do today. 300 years later is a long time. His opinion means nothing. He writes that Constantine in AD 312 declared the edict of Mulia that ended state persecution of Christians. LOL, his version of Christians. Now they perseucuted the Arian version of Christians. Burnt all their writings. Made it a capital offense to believe differently. A capital offense to be found with any of their writings. All writings had to be labeled and endorsed. Many who signed the Nicene creed repented of what they had done. In time, the church reverted back to Arianism. They poisioned Arius as he was about to be reinstated. Arius did believe that Jesus was God. Only he believed that Jesus had a beginning in time and that he was created and that the Father was greater than Jesus. The HS as a third person was not even addressed in the Nicene council. It had not evolved to that point at this time. This was Anthanius's doings. [I realize this is not the correct spelling] The trinity as we know it now came from the 4th century. Was nonexistant before. It resembled more the "oneness" crowd. Clearly a modern invention


----------



## Foxfire (May 7, 2012)

Trinity is found in Matthew 28:19.

Foxfire/Y2KZ71


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 7, 2012)

Foxfire said:


> Trinity is found in Matthew 28:19.
> 
> Foxfire/Y2KZ71


 That verse was added later. Here's the proof:

Its as simple as 1 2 3

first there was Mathew 28:18

and then added later was 28:19

see 19 is later than 18


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 7, 2012)

Foxfire said:


> Trinity is found in Matthew 28:19.
> 
> Foxfire/Y2KZ71


I can show you 7 early church fathers that speak about Matthews gospel being written in Hebrew. Our only surviving Hebrew version does not have the 3 part baptismal formula. Context threw a red flag on this one long before I knew what I know now. If we are baptized into Jesus's death, then why be baptized into the 3part formula. The HS and God did not die. Also, it makes no sense to say "All authority has been given to Tom so go baptize in Bill and Tom's name." A church Historian named Eusebius wrote tons on church issues. Before the Nicene creed, he writes about Matthew 28:19 seventeen times using it as "Go baptize in my name". Only after the Council of 325, after he was hired to make 50+ copies of bibles containing what Constatine declared was correct did he start using this formula. Baptize in my name agrees with the remainder of scripture that uses in Jesus name. I know corruption when I see it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 7, 2012)

At least the Apostolic Church got this part right. 1gr8bldr were you Baptized in the name of Jesus only? If you weren't would you get re-Baptized? Would most Protestant preachers give you a choice?


----------



## centerpin fan (May 7, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Written by a trinitarian by reverse engineering. pg2 he writes that the Arian view arose in the 4th century. Wrong. 2nd century but came to a head in the early third century.



Arius wasn't even born until the middle of the 3rd century.  If somebody was teaching "Arianism" in the 2nd or early 3rd centuries, it wasn't Arius.  Who was it?




1gr8bldr said:


> The trinity as we know it now came from the 4th century. Was nonexistant before.



Tertullian wrote about the Trinity in the late 2nd/early 3rd century.  He even uses the term "Trinity".  You can argue that he had a different meaning than we do today, but he definitely wrote about it.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 8, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Arius wasn't even born until the middle of the 3rd century.  If somebody was teaching "Arianism" in the 2nd or early 3rd centuries, it wasn't Arius.  Who was it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The council of the Nicene creed 325 , this is the council that argued about his views. One of us has some bad info? I will check into this


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 8, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Arius wasn't even born until the middle of the 3rd century.  If somebody was teaching "Arianism" in the 2nd or early 3rd centuries, it wasn't Arius.  Who was it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Took 3 seconds to confirm I was right. You must have confused him with another. I have done the same


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 8, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Written by a trinitarian by reverse engineering. pg2 he writes that the Arian view arose in the 4th century. Wrong. 2nd century but came to a head in the early third century. He writes "The churches answer is found in the words of the Nicene Creed" LOL It comes from the scriptures, not unbiblical terms like Hypostatic union, incarnation, etc. He writes "Athanius was the greatest of all the gifts to the NT church" This is just proof that this is not the gospel first entrusted to the saints because it was evolving. He was argueing over scriptures exactly like we do today. 300 years later is a long time. His opinion means nothing. He writes that Constantine in AD 312 declared the edict of Mulia that ended state persecution of Christians. LOL, his version of Christians. Now they perseucuted the Arian version of Christians. Burnt all their writings. Made it a capital offense to believe differently. A capital offense to be found with any of their writings. All writings had to be labeled and endorsed. Many who signed the Nicene creed repented of what they had done. In time, the church reverted back to Arianism. They poisioned Arius as he was about to be reinstated. Arius did believe that Jesus was God. Only he believed that Jesus had a beginning in time and that he was created and that the Father was greater than Jesus. The HS as a third person was not even addressed in the Nicene council. It had not evolved to that point at this time. This was Anthanius's doings. [I realize this is not the correct spelling] The trinity as we know it now came from the 4th century. Was nonexistant before. It resembled more the "oneness" crowd. Clearly a modern invention


Anthanausius


----------



## BrettJ (May 8, 2012)

Jesus does not know the hour of his return because he is under the authority of God.  Jesus said he does the will of the Father.  God is the Godhead of the the trinity thus he is all knowing and in all power.  Jesus is submisive to the will of God.  Look at the Trinity like this.  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are a football team.  God is the quarterback and calls the plays.  The rest of the team doesnt know the play until God tells them.  I know you cant understand this if you are not saved because the bible(the word of God) says you cant.  Also our God says His ways are not our ways.  He is way bigger than we are.  So you cant understand the God.  Even the greatest christians of all time couldnt fully understand all of God.  I think that is great because I couldnt worship a god that I could fully understant and figure out.  If I could do that then I could manipulate him and then he would be not god at all.  Look at the bright side.  The bible says all heads will bow and all knees will bend and know Jesus is Lord.  One day you will understand enough to know you blew it when you had a chance to believe.  But when you are in front of God at the Great White Throne of Judgement it will be too late.  I only hope you are asking these questions because somewhere deep inside you do believe in God and want to be saved.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 8, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> The council of the Nicene creed 325 , this is the council that argued about his views.



Yes, but that's the 4th century.

Tertullian was born around 160 AD (2nd century.)  Arius was born about one hundred years later in the 3rd century.  The Council of Nicea occurred about seventy-five years after that in the 4th century.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 8, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Took 3 seconds to confirm I was right. You must have confused him with another. I have done the same



I'm not sure who you're saying I'm confused about, Tertullian or Arius.  Regardless, I stand by my previous statements.


----------



## atlashunter (May 8, 2012)

BrettJ said:


> Jesus does not know the hour of his return because he is under the authority of God.  Jesus said he does the will of the Father.  God is the Godhead of the the trinity thus he is all knowing and in all power.  Jesus is submisive to the will of God.  Look at the Trinity like this.  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are a football team.  God is the quarterback and calls the plays.  The rest of the team doesnt know the play until God tells them.



That makes sense. You have separate individuals with separate minds on a football team. Nobody would say that those who make up a team constitute one person. Yet it is claimed that the trinity constitutes a single being. So which is it? A team of separate individual Gods? Or three different parts of a single God?




BrettJ said:


> I know you cant understand this if you are not saved because the bible(the word of God) says you cant. Also our God says His ways are not our ways.  He is way bigger than we are.  So you cant understand the God.  Even the greatest christians of all time couldnt fully understand all of God.  I think that is great because I couldnt worship a god that I could fully understant and figure out.  If I could do that then I could manipulate him and then he would be not god at all.  Look at the bright side.  The bible says all heads will bow and all knees will bend and know Jesus is Lord.  One day you will understand enough to know you blew it when you had a chance to believe.  But when you are in front of God at the Great White Throne of Judgement it will be too late.  I only hope you are asking these questions because somewhere deep inside you do believe in God and want to be saved.



Remind us again who the author of confusion is?


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 8, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> So you worship bird feeders???



You worship the voice in your head??


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 8, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Yes, but that's the 4th century.
> 
> Tertullian was born around 160 AD (2nd century.)  Arius was born about one hundred years later in the 3rd century.  The Council of Nicea occurred about seventy-five years after that in the 4th century.


Have I been figuring this wrong all along. I supposed that 325AD is 3rd century and 425AD would be 4th century. Is that not correct. Let me think a minute; 0-99=1st, 100-199=2nd, 200-ohhh. I learned something today. Thanks for keeping me in check.


----------



## BrettJ (May 8, 2012)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrettJ  
I know you cant understand this if you are not saved because the bible(the word of God) says you cant. Also our God says His ways are not our ways. He is way bigger than we are. So you cant understand the God. Even the greatest christians of all time couldnt fully understand all of God. I think that is great because I couldnt worship a god that I could fully understant and figure out. If I could do that then I could manipulate him and then he would be not god at all. Look at the bright side. The bible says all heads will bow and all knees will bend and know Jesus is Lord. One day you will understand enough to know you blew it when you had a chance to believe. But when you are in front of God at the Great White Throne of Judgement it will be too late. I only hope you are asking these questions because somewhere deep inside you do believe in God and want to be saved. 

Remind us again who the author of confusion is? 
What are you confused about?


----------



## atlashunter (May 8, 2012)

I'm confused as to why you and other Christians can't agree on the nature of the trinity or the answer to the OP. Also confused as to how Christians can claim to know so much about a God which at other times they say is incomprehensible. Maybe you folks should get your stories staight and then get back to us backward heathens that can't make any sense of it.


----------



## fish hawk (May 8, 2012)

TripleXBullies said:


> You worship the voice in your head??



Nope.....That voice in my head has me thinking some crazy stuff sometimes.


----------



## fish hawk (May 8, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe you folks should get your stories staight and then get back to us backward heathens that can't make any sense of it.



Why do you call yourself a heathen???


----------



## dexrusjak (May 9, 2012)

It's simple...

1. By definition, God knows everything.
2. If Jesus is God, then Jesus knows everything.
3. If Jesus does not know everything, then Jesus is not God.
4. The Bible says that Jesus does not know everything.

Therefore, a Bible-believing Christian has to decide: either...

1. The Bible is flawed.
--or--
2. Jesus cannot be God.

Until someone demonstrates a flaw in the above premises and conclusion, I contend that it is a logical contradiction for someone to believe that the Bible is infallible AND Jesus is God.  The doctrine of the trinity is irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## BrettJ (May 9, 2012)

The bible is the word of God.  We are mere humans with limitations on our understanding.  All we can do is try to understand as much as we can and continue to read the bible.  God grants us understanding as we get ready for it as our relationship grows with Him.  If you are not saved, you can forget about understanding anything about God.  He will not reveal himself to you.  The bible is very complex and were are not just dealing with physics or chemistry here.  It is about God.  He is  incomprehensible but he does reveal some understanding to the believer.  Just because you dont understand something doenst mean it is not true.  Yes there are some diffferent expanations about things of the bible from different christians.  In my opinion there is only one correct interpetation however there can be truth in many different interpetations.  I also think that as a person grows as a christian he will begin to align his interpetaions with the correct one as God increases his understanding.  One thing to keep in mind is that all people confessing to be christians and to be saved are not.  The way to tell is to look at their life and see if there is a radical change in comparison of their life before they say they were saved and after they were saved.  Satan is still at work and he is very good at convincing people to thinking they are saved and are going to heaven when they are not.  If you feel that God is calling you to become saved, dont resist.  Accept that you are a sinner and that Jesus died on the cross and shed his blood as payment for your sins and accept Jesus as Lord of you life.  Then before you start reading the bible, pray to God for understanding of His word and he will.  Then maybe you can help us Christians out with these questions on this site because this is tough stuff.


----------



## centerpin fan (May 9, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> It's simple...
> 
> 1. By definition, God knows everything.
> 2. If Jesus is God, then Jesus knows everything.
> ...



I highlighted the flaw in your thinking.  See post #8.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 9, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> It's simple...
> 
> 1. By definition, God knows everything.
> 2. If Jesus is God, then Jesus knows everything.
> ...



His ways are not our ways, remember... Not mathematically commutative.


----------



## Foxfire (May 9, 2012)

Those of you that believe Jesus Can't Be God.  Judgement Day is coming them you tell Jesus he's not God.  Jesus will have a place reserved for you.

Foxfire/Y2KZ71


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2012)

Foxfire said:


> Those of you that believe Jesus Can't Be God.  Judgement Day is coming them you tell Jesus he's not God.  Jesus will have a place reserved for you.
> 
> Foxfire/Y2KZ71




OOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Scary!!!

What if the Hindus are right and you end up in Narakam?   Never considered that did you?  

If you're not afraid of Narakam then you understand why I'm not afraid of He11.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2012)

Foxfire said:


> Those of you that believe Jesus Can't Be God.  Judgement Day is coming them you tell Jesus he's not God.  Jesus will have a place reserved for you.
> 
> Foxfire/Y2KZ71



Will I be able to see Jesus and God if I make it to Heaven?


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2012)

BrettJ said:


> The bible is the word of God.  We are mere humans with limitations on our understanding.  All we can do is try to understand as much as we can and continue to read the bible.  God grants us understanding as we get ready for it as our relationship grows with Him.  If you are not saved, you can forget about understanding anything about God.  He will not reveal himself to you.  The bible is very complex and were are not just dealing with physics or chemistry here.  It is about God.  He is  incomprehensible but he does reveal some understanding to the believer.  Just because you dont understand something doenst mean it is not true.  Yes there are some diffferent expanations about things of the bible from different christians.  In my opinion there is only one correct interpetation however there can be truth in many different interpetations.  I also think that as a person grows as a christian he will begin to align his interpetaions with the correct one as God increases his understanding.  One thing to keep in mind is that all people confessing to be christians and to be saved are not.  The way to tell is to look at their life and see if there is a radical change in comparison of their life before they say they were saved and after they were saved.  Satan is still at work and he is very good at convincing people to thinking they are saved and are going to heaven when they are not.  If you feel that God is calling you to become saved, dont resist.  Accept that you are a sinner and that Jesus died on the cross and shed his blood as payment for your sins and accept Jesus as Lord of you life.  Then before you start reading the bible, pray to God for understanding of His word and he will.  Then maybe you can help us Christians out with these questions on this site because this is tough stuff.



And yet God could not write the Bible or have it universally understood and accepted by his children.


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And yet God could not write the Bible or have it universally understood and accepted by his children.



I think I understand now. God can reveal information to them that they cannot reveal to the rest of us (although their revelations often conflict with each other and are incomplete). I guess they think they have mental powers the rest of us don't.


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I think I understand now. God can reveal information to them that they cannot reveal to the rest of us (although their revelations often conflict with each other and are incomplete). I guess they think they have mental powers the rest of us don't.



That's why I like Gemcgrew's position.  He states out right that he was chosen by God.  He doesn't have to do any explaining like the free willies who often say "I can't really explain it but I know it's true."   Isn't that odd?  Why would anyone in their right mind listen to someone who said that?


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I think I understand now. God can reveal information to them that they cannot reveal to the rest of us (although their revelations often conflict with each other and are incomplete). I guess they think they have mental powers the rest of us don't.



It certainly seems that way.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 9, 2012)

Foxfire said:


> Those of you that believe Jesus Can't Be God.  Judgement Day is coming them you tell Jesus he's not God.  Jesus will have a place reserved for you.
> 
> Foxfire/Y2KZ71


Unlike Moses who said "must I bring water from this rock", Jesus did everything he could to make sure that he gave all credit to the Father working in him. I don't know what else he could have done. He said "the Father is greater than I". "I go to my God and your God" "it is the Father living in me doing his work". You guys do not realize that your just fighting for a modern invention. Just as the Catholics fight that they are right in their unjustified prayers to Mary, just as the King James only crowd fights that their version is the only inspired version, you blindly fight for a belief that evoled through many centuries. Surely not the same simple belief that the first converts of Acts believed. It is another gospel, not the one "first entrusted to the saints". At some point, everyone must quit fighting for their traditions and try to erase all assumed beliefs and start over, putting their beliefs under a microscope. I was in the trinitarian church for 40 years. After awhile, mostly through long debates against JW's, I realized that the socalled trin proof texts were ambigious, weak, few, misinterpreted, out of context, corrupted. I'm rambling now, I'll just say that those who think that the gospel is that Jesus is God, believe this and you will be saved. You have completly missed the New Covenant. God coming to dwell in man, not God coming as man.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (May 9, 2012)

About The Trinity, Jesus is The Son and God is The Father. The Father,The Son and The Holy Spirit are all one. Think of this: you have a dad and a mom. You are part of your parents because you were born to them. You are controled by your parents because you are their child. Jesus is The Son of God and is controled by God but also is God because He is part of God(by being His Son). Jesus was sent to earth in the form of man. Man is made in God's image, not saying that man is God, but that Jesus is God and, while on earth, came in the form of man. That might sound like a bunch of the same words but read it more than once and it should make more sense.


----------



## BrettJ (May 9, 2012)

Well said and I understand it completely.  I think most people with half a brain could understand it but they dont want to.  If they start understanding, then they will have to admit that God does exist.


----------



## BrettJ (May 9, 2012)

God's children do except the bible.  If you reject the bible as the word of God then you are not his child.  You belong to Satan.  As far as understanding goes, christians are at different levels of understanding.  When we became saved, God didnt just fill our minds with infinte wisdom.  When a child finishes 1st grade, do you send him to college. Nope.  He goes to the next level of his understanding to continue where he left off with his learning, which is the 2nd grade.  When christians die, we go to heaven and become transformed.  Then we will know everything God wants us to know.


----------



## bullethead (May 9, 2012)

BrettJ said:


> Well said and I understand it completely.  I think most people with half a brain could understand it but they dont want to.  If they start understanding, then they will have to admit that God does exist.



Most people with full brains understand that it is total nonsense.


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2012)

BrettJ said:


> God's children do except the bible.  If you reject the bible as the word of God then you are not his child.  You belong to Satan.  As far as understanding goes, christians are at different levels of understanding.  When we became saved, God didnt just fill our minds with infinte wisdom.  When a child finishes 1st grade, do you send him to college. Nope.  He goes to the next level of his understanding to continue where he left off with his learning, which is the 2nd grade.  When christians die, we go to heaven and become transformed.  Then we will know everything God wants us to know.



But not as much as you wanted know, because that's why you ate the fruit to begin with after all.  Good thing He will give you a "sin lobotomy" so that you will behave.  Good little sheep......


----------



## rejfoxtrot (May 9, 2012)

Foxfire said:


> Those of you that believe Jesus Can't Be God.  Judgement Day is coming them you tell Jesus he's not God.  Jesus will have a place reserved for you.
> 
> Foxfire/Y2KZ71



Rabbit trails are awesome! And here is mine, God created h3ll for satan and his demons(Matthew 25:41),  we just choose to follow satan or God.


----------



## ambush80 (May 9, 2012)

rejfoxtrot said:


> Rabbit trails are awesome! And here is mine, God created h3ll for satan and his demons(Matthew 25:41),  we just choose to follow satan or God.



What if you were made a vessel of wrath or your heart was hardened like Pharaoh?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> What if you were made a vessel of wrath or your heart was hardened like Pharaoh?



Then you would be doomed for He!!. God can do collateral damage or maybe God knew that person was  never going to accept Jesus anyway so he might as well use him to persuade others.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> About The Trinity, Jesus is The Son and God is The Father. The Father,The Son and The Holy Spirit are all one. Think of this: you have a dad and a mom. You are part of your parents because you were born to them. You are controled by your parents because you are their child. Jesus is The Son of God and is controled by God but also is God because He is part of God(by being His Son). Jesus was sent to earth in the form of man. Man is made in God's image, not saying that man is God, but that Jesus is God and, while on earth, came in the form of man. That might sound like a bunch of the same words but read it more than once and it should make more sense.



I think I can see it. I and my Dad are one. We do act pretty much alike. Same likes, views, genetics. I would even say, if you have seen me, you have seen my Father. I wouldn't want to leave my mom out either. If you have seen my Mom, you have seen me. What's so important about you Father's genetics that override your Mother's?


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> That's why I like Gemcgrew's position.  He states out right that he was chosen by God.  He doesn't have to do any explaining like the free willies who often say "I can't really explain it but I know it's true."   Isn't that odd?  Why would anyone in their right mind listen to someone who said that?



I wished I believed as Gemcgrew's did. It does make more scriptural since. God knows & controls everything. It doesn't make any logical since so go ahead and kick me but why would God pick  and predestine some to Heaven & others to He!!? God would have to know the outcome of Adam & Eve, Noah & the flood, Me and my salvation, Christ & the cross, & i'm guessing he might know about the rapture & the coming of Jesus.

It would sure be a load off my back to know I didn't have anything whatsoever to do with or for my salvation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2012)

BrettJ said:


> Well said and I understand it completely.  I think most people with half a brain could understand it but they dont want to.  If they start understanding, then they will have to admit that God does exist.



I don't understand it at all and I want to. I consider myself a Christian & the more I read the more confused I get. I read the KJV of the Bible, I ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, I ask church elders for help, and i'm still looking for answers. You said a non-believer doesn't have the ability to understand. How can that non-believer ever become a Christian with no ability to understand? Are you saying that person is dead in the spirit and is waiting for the Holy Spirit to awaken them? (Total depravity)
I wish that I believed in Predestination, Salvation Assurance, & the Trinity but I don't. I reckon God decided to use me to show ya'll the way.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 9, 2012)

Foxfire said:


> Those of you that believe Jesus Can't Be God.  Judgement Day is coming them you tell Jesus he's not God.  Jesus will have a place reserved for you.
> 
> Foxfire/Y2KZ71



Is there a scripture that says I have to believe Jesus is God? I do believe he is my Savior and died for my sins. I do believe he is the ONLY way to get to Heaven.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 9, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> It would sure be a load off my back to know I didn't have anything whatsoever to do with or for my salvation.



Perhaps a peace which "passeth all understanding."


----------



## Asath (May 9, 2012)

Or perhaps, more likely, y'all are doing nothing more than blowing smoke at each other, and us, the same as your Churchmen have been doing for a few thousand years.

Don't feel too persecuted -- yours is not the only religion that has been doing the exact same thing, and they are as wrong as y'all are.

Not a one of you, from any camp, at any time, by any means, or with a single shred of evidence has ever demonstrated with anything other than thundering oratory and threatened (and actual) violence and collective bullying that you have ever had any idea what you're talking about.  Not one GOD of any kind has ever been conjured up, appeared to His Creation, and even said so much as "Hi!"

So, as progress marches forwards, and continues the inexorable process of leaving ancient 'Believers' behind, try not to take it personally -- the tree must be pruned regularly, for the health and survival of the tree itself, and it is only those branches that must be lopped off that can truly consider themselves to be martyred for the common good.


----------



## fish hawk (May 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> Not a one of you, from any camp, at any time, by any means, or with a single shred of evidence has ever demonstrated with anything other than thundering oratory and threatened (and actual) violence and collective bullying that you have ever had any idea what you're talking about.  "


I think the shoe will fit on the other foot {yours} also.


----------



## fish hawk (May 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> Not one GOD of any kind has ever been conjured up, appeared to His Creation, and even said so much as "Hi!"



He appeared to Abraham and Moses


----------



## Asath (May 9, 2012)

"He appeared to Abraham and Moses."

HE, being who?  And Abraham and Moses were?

Tom and Jerry?  Castor and Pollux?  Arthur and Galahad?  Heveydd and Rhiannon?

Sorry.  Fictional characters 'appearing' to other fictional characters, and only within the same work of fiction, tends to stretch the rules of evidence.  A jury of reasonable peers would ask one to produce, from amongst the hundreds of thousands of contemporary 'Witnesses' (including many here) claiming to know God and Jesus 'personally,' at least one who can introduce these incredibly shy and reluctant Beings to their Own Creation -- think of the money you could make if you could convince God, or Jesus, or the Holy Ghost (or all of them, what with all of them being only one of them) to pop onto Leno one night and say 'Hi!"

Augustinian disquisitions on the 'changeless light within' and the ideosyncratically 'magic soul' only go so far.  Folks can wax philosophical and poetic all day about everything from the Bible to Disneyland and from the Koran to Gulliver's Travels, and can get as passionate as their own credulity can stretch -- but the rest of us just yawn, patiently, and look for the exits.

If you folks actually have a God that meets the descriptions and criteria you've assigned to the poor, overburdened Darth Vader-meets-Pinocchio characterizations you have repeatedly represented -- then trotting the fella out here for the rest of us to meet should be small potatoes.

We'll even wander into one of your Cathedrals, if the fella only drops by places you've built for Him to visit  -- and we'll wait.

In fact, we've BEEN waiting.  So quit telling us about it -- it's SHOWTIME!


----------



## atlashunter (May 9, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> About The Trinity, Jesus is The Son and God is The Father. The Father,The Son and The Holy Spirit are all one. Think of this: you have a dad and a mom. You are part of your parents because you were born to them. You are controled by your parents because you are their child. Jesus is The Son of God and is controled by God but also is God because He is part of God(by being His Son). Jesus was sent to earth in the form of man. Man is made in God's image, not saying that man is God, but that Jesus is God and, while on earth, came in the form of man. That might sound like a bunch of the same words but read it more than once and it should make more sense.



This is sloppy thinking. You and your parents are not one person at all but distinct separate individuals. You're _related_ but not one. If this is analogous to the trinity then we're just talking about 3 related but distinct Gods.


----------



## Asath (May 10, 2012)

And, not to push the point, but when your Mom and Dad met, You were the furthest thing from their minds. 

Fact is, at least one of the two microscopic cells that combined and grew into you, out of JUST THOSE TWO LITTLE CELLS, hadn’t even been secreted yet.  So when they met, the You that is now You, was impossible.

Not quite something out of Nothing – the You that is reading this – but something, hugely improbably, out of the chance meeting of two microscopic entities that happened to meet under favorable conditions.

Odd, huh?


----------



## ross the deer slayer (May 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger: John 3:16- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Others: I wasn't trying to say that me and my parents are the same, but are part of eachother by being born from my mom. Anybody read the book 'Crazy Love' by Francis Chan? It might change your view on this topic..i'm only on chapter 2 but its really strengthening my faith. Go to crazylovebook website and look at the video "awe factor". All that on the video can't just appear! God 
 made it! Tell me what you think of it please..


----------



## mtnwoman (May 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> For me, Mark 13:32 is a demonstration that  Jesus Christ is exactly who and what he claims to be, both God and man. As a man, he was no more omniscient than he was omnipotent or omnipresent. When he hungered, it was not God who hungered, but man. When he died, it was not God who died, but man.
> 
> Sometimes he speaks of himself as a man (as here), and sometimes he speaks of himself as God, in order to show that he is fully both.



Right on....


----------



## mtnwoman (May 13, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> This is sloppy thinking. You and your parents are not one person at all but distinct separate individuals.



Right!! 3 individuals, mother, father, child.....evolved from 'whatever' yet have distinct finger prints, dna except from blood kin which is only similar. How are we evolved from a toad, for example, and yet none of us having the same dna or fingerprints?  Now I understand how trolls have similar traits, but I bet even if they are evolved from a toadstool, that none of their dna, fingerprints are alike. I'm confused on that part. How does that happen?  How does evolution produce something similar to itself but not exactly like itself, ie fingerprints? hormones? IQ? dna? Something we can't duplicate, how does nature do that?


----------



## BrettJ (May 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't understand it at all and I want to. I consider myself a Christian & the more I read the more confused I get. I read the KJV of the Bible, I ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, I ask church elders for help, and i'm still looking for answers. You said a non-believer doesn't have the ability to understand. How can that non-believer ever become a Christian with no ability to understand? Are you saying that person is dead in the spirit and is waiting for the Holy Spirit to awaken them? (Total depravity)
> I wish that I believed in Predestination, Salvation Assurance, & the Trinity but I don't. I reckon God decided to use me to show ya'll the way.



Why do you consider yourself a Christian?  Do you know what is means to be a Christian?  Why dont you believe in the Trinity and Salvation Assurance. Do you want to be a Christian? Please explain and I will try to help you.


----------



## TripleXBullies (May 14, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> About The Trinity, Jesus is The Son and God is The Father. The Father,The Son and The Holy Spirit are all one. Think of this: you have a dad and a mom. You are part of your parents because you were born to them. You are controled by your parents because you are their child. Jesus is The Son of God and is controled by God but also is God because He is part of God(by being His Son). Jesus was sent to earth in the form of man. Man is made in God's image, not saying that man is God, but that Jesus is God and, while on earth, came in the form of man. That might sound like a bunch of the same words but read it more than once and it should make more sense.



Nope...


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 14, 2012)

BrettJ said:


> Why do you consider yourself a Christian?  Do you know what is means to be a Christian?  Why dont you believe in the Trinity and Salvation Assurance. Do you want to be a Christian? Please explain and I will try to help you.



I believe Jesus is the son of God and died for my sins. I believe that is all i have to believe in to be a Christian. That is the believing part.
Now the doing part, this is the way of life you must do to be a Christian. Forgive others of their trespasses, love others, help others.
Helping others on an individual basis not just giving to missions and charity. I've read too much in the Bible about living the Christian life to not think it is part of the equation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 14, 2012)

For you predestination folks, why did God make me believe in the things i believe in? 
Believe me it would be easier on me if i didn't believe the way i do. I can't just change my beliefs to just fit in.


----------



## BrettJ (May 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I believe Jesus is the son of God and died for my sins. I believe that is all i have to believe in to be a Christian. That is the believing part.
> Now the doing part, this is the way of life you must do to be a Christian. Forgive others of their trespasses, love others, help others.
> Helping others on an individual basis not just giving to missions and charity. I've read too much in the Bible about living the Christian life to not think it is part of the equation.



Sounds to me that you are on the right track.  But here is the key.  Is Jesus lord of your life?  Do you live to accomplish your will or His.  Jesus must come first in your life.  No christian can do this perfectly so please dont start looking at known christians and pointing out their flaws.  You just have to do the best you can and keep praying for help to be obedient to the word of God.


----------



## gemcgrew (May 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> For you predestination folks, why did God make me believe in the things i believe in?


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

If you ever come to understand that word "purpose", it is a key that unlocks Romans, and for me, the Bible.

Even the beliefs of the Atheist work for the good of the elect.


----------



## dexrusjak (May 14, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> For His purpose. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Rom 8:28)
> 
> If you ever come to understand that word "purpose", it is a key that unlocks Romans, and for me, the Bible.
> 
> Even the beliefs of the Atheist work for the good of the elect.



Glad I could help.


----------



## dexrusjak (May 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I believe Jesus is the son of God and died for my sins. I believe that is all i have to believe in to be a Christian. That is the believing part.
> Now the doing part, this is the way of life you must do to be a Christian. Forgive others of their trespasses, love others, help others.
> Helping others on an individual basis not just giving to missions and charity. I've read too much in the Bible about living the Christian life to not think it is part of the equation.



You don't have to be a Christian to do any of these things.  I do these on a daily basis because I'm a decent person, not because I believe in a bunch of bronze-age fairy tales.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (May 15, 2012)

C'mon guys if you don't believe something that's one thing but to disrespect a religion by calling it a "bronze-age fairy tale" is kind of rude, not to point out flaws but seriously.. and if God wasn't real, the concept of earth and 350,000,000,000(350 billion-estimate) galaxies without a Creator just doesn't really..umm make sense. God has to be real. I do think sometimes WOW can that be true? A Being created me, this earth, the universe? But then I think OBVIOUSLY! God must be real, there couldn't be anything without God! God must be The Designer of the universe..no other theories make sense..God must be real. If anyone has an opinion on how EVERYTHING came to be please tell me..if God wasn't real, then why would we be alive?


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> C'mon guys if you don't believe something that's one thing but to disrespect a religion by calling it a "bronze-age fairy tale" is kind of rude, not to point out flaws but seriously.. and if God wasn't real, the concept of earth and 350,000,000,000(350 billion-estimate) galaxies without a Creator just doesn't really..umm make sense. God has to be real. I do think sometimes WOW can that be true? A Being created me, this earth, the universe? But then I think OBVIOUSLY! God must be real, there couldn't be anything without God! God must be The Designer of the universe..no other theories make sense..God must be real. If anyone has an opinion on how EVERYTHING came to be please tell me..if God wasn't real, then why would we be alive?



What makes you so sure that YOUR God or your version of a God is the one responsible? Of the thousands of religions and God's could it be possible that one you have never heard of is the one that created all those things?


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> C'mon guys if you don't believe something that's one thing but to disrespect a religion by calling it a "bronze-age fairy tale" is kind of rude, not to point out flaws but seriously.. and if God wasn't real, the concept of earth and 350,000,000,000(350 billion-estimate) galaxies without a Creator just doesn't really..umm make sense. God has to be real. I do think sometimes WOW can that be true? A Being created me, this earth, the universe? But then I think OBVIOUSLY! God must be real, there couldn't be anything without God! God must be The Designer of the universe..no other theories make sense..God must be real. If anyone has an opinion on how EVERYTHING came to be please tell me..if God wasn't real, then why would we be alive?



Argument from ignorance. "I can't think of any other way it could have happened so I'll plug my preferred mythology in the gap."


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

Ross they can get away with it in here,but if you step on any of there toes they go crying to the moderators.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Ross they can get away with it in here,but if you step on any of there toes they go crying to the moderators.



For example.....


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Argument from ignorance.



 Bad boy!!!


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Most people with full brains understand that it is total nonsense.


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

Looks like a fun night indeed.I know you didnt open up that can of worms!!!


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Looks like a fun night indeed.I know you didnt open up that can of worms!!!



For example.....Who cries to the Mods.......

We can dish it out and take it.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

"Originally Posted by bullethead View Post
Most people with full brains understand that it is total nonsense."

fish hawk, of course you happened to miss what that reply was in reference to.


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> For example.....Who cries to the Mods.......
> 
> We can dish it out and take it.



Indeed. The AAA sub forum wasn't created at the behest of the atheist and agnostics.


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)




----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


>



The Mods do not need anyone to point out troublemakers. They do a great job of sifting out the people who are here for conversation and the ones that are here to start trouble.

Take the rest of the night off and check to see why there are arrowheads here in the USA that date back to 14,000 years in a world that is only 6,000-10,000 years old.


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The Mods do not need anyone to point out troublemakers. They do a great job of sifting out the people who are here for conversation and the ones that are here to start trouble.
> 
> Take the rest of the night off and check to see why there are arrowheads here in the USA that date back to 14,000 years in a world that is only 6,000-10,000 years old.



How do you know how old they are???It's called a Bolen Bevel ,Early archaic 7,000 to 5,000 B.C.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> How do you know how old they are???



I cross referenced the serial numbers with the National Arrowhead Data Base that is secretly run by the BATF.


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

Or so they say


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The Mods do not need anyone to point out troublemakers. They do a great job of sifting out the people who are here for conversation and the ones that are here to start trouble.



No trouble here bro......It's just a great fishing hole!!!


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> How do you know how old they are???It's called a Bolen Bevel ,Early archaic 7,000 to 5,000 B.C.



I'm thinking more along the lines of Paleo.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> No trouble here bro......It's just a great fishing hole!!!



Just wondering where the "cry to the Mods" comment came from then....


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I'm thinking more along the lines of Paleo.



Paleo:12,000 to 9,000 B.C.
I have no reason to refute.Ive never found one but I have found one bad adze Dalton!!!


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Paleo:12,000 to 9,000 B.C.
> I have no reason to refute.Ive never found one but I have found one bad adze Dalton!!!



My point being... how could there have been Native Americans making arrowheads here in the USA before Adam&Eve were in the Garden? How could there be arrowheads in Africa that are 64,000 years old when people argue that the Earth is only 10,000 years old?

You hold evidence in your hand that gotta make you think about how it got there earlier than we were created.


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> My point being... how could there have been Native Americans making arrowheads here in the USA before Adam&Eve were in the Garden? How could there be arrowheads in Africa that are 64,000 years old when people argue that the Earth is only 10,000 years old?
> 
> You hold evidence in your hand that gotta make you think about how it got there earlier than we were created.



Point is, no one really knows exactly how old they are.I do know how it got there though......An Indian lost it!!!


----------



## atlashunter (May 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Point is, no one really knows exactly how old they are.I do know how it got there though......An Indian lost it!!!


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Point is, no one really knows exactly how old they are.I do know how it got there though......An Indian lost it!!!



Then why classify them? Do you mean they could actually be older than originally thought?


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

Look guys yall cant get me started on talking about arrowheads....My vision gets blurry,my head gets dizzy,drool starts running down my chin and I loose all train of thought.Before long I'll be posting pics and talking about flaking patterns,ground bases,beautiful deep notches,killer river polish,awesome patina!!!Scandalous to say the least.


----------



## bullethead (May 15, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Look guys yall cant get me started on talking about arrowheads....My vision gets blurry,my head gets dizzy,drool starts running down my chin and I loose all train of thought.Before long I'll be posting pics and talking about flaking patterns,ground bases,beautiful deep notches,killer river polish,awesome patina!!!Scandalous to say the least.



We all have our vices. Congrats.


----------



## fish hawk (May 15, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then why classify them? Do you mean they could actually be older than originally thought?


 On some point types there is controversy about age,be it older or younger......It's not a simple study.


----------



## Artfuldodger (May 15, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> You don't have to be a Christian to do any of these things.  I do these on a daily basis because I'm a decent person, not because I believe in a bunch of bronze-age fairy tales.



You made a good point for some of my fellow Christians and that is doing good want get you into Heaven. Most people all over the world are good, honest people. Religion might even have some bad effects. It could  even create hatred against fellow men. ie: gays, Muslims, Jews.


----------



## dexrusjak (May 16, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> C'mon guys if you don't believe something that's one thing but to disrespect a religion by calling it a "bronze-age fairy tale" is kind of rude, not to point out flaws but seriously.. and if God wasn't real, the concept of earth and 350,000,000,000(350 billion-estimate) galaxies without a Creator just doesn't really..umm make sense. God has to be real. I do think sometimes WOW can that be true? A Being created me, this earth, the universe? But then I think OBVIOUSLY! God must be real, there couldn't be anything without God! God must be The Designer of the universe..no other theories make sense..God must be real. If anyone has an opinion on how EVERYTHING came to be please tell me..if God wasn't real, then why would we be alive?



I disrespect religion as much as I disrespect other ridiculous beliefs.  Christianity is a fairy tale.

As for the rest of your post...link.

One more thing: if God created us, who created God?


----------



## dexrusjak (May 16, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> You made a good point for some of my fellow Christians and that is doing good want get you into Heaven. Most people all over the world are good, honest people. Religion might even have some bad effects. It could  even create hatred against fellow men. ie: gays, Muslims, Jews.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 16, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> I disrespect religion as much as I disrespect other ridiculous beliefs.  Christianity is a fairy tale.
> 
> As for the rest of your post...link.
> 
> One more thing: if God created us, who created God?



God ever was and he created you and I out of nothing which to some is akin to a spiritual black hole in that nothing is something. Our lives are lotis flowers, littly pad flowers, short lived flowers growning where once were the depts of the seas and ground down mountains and our homes are of minerals and timber from the far side of the Lebanons of heaven.

Jessy Jackson one day began and someday will stop showing up to news worthy events... Not God He always was and always will be as far a we are concerned. 

Now there is no foolin with good schoolin---This has been thought just recently when the Maccabees flanked the pagans.  Bet it is a lot older then this, aaaaaaaaaalot older !I did not invent this.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2012)

ODIN ever was and he created you and I out of nothing which to some is akin to a spiritual black hole in that nothing is something. Our lives are lotis flowers, littly pad flowers, short lived flowers growning where once were the depts of the seas and ground down mountains and our homes are of minerals and timber from the far side of the Lebanons of VALHALLA.

Jessy Jackson one day began and someday will stop showing up to news worthy events... Not ODIN He always was and always will be as far a we are concerned.

Now there is no foolin with good schoolin---This has been thought just recently when the Maccabees flanked the pagans. Bet it is a lot older then this, aaaaaaaaaalot older !I did not invent this.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2012)

NOW I GET IT!!!!!!
Insert ANY Deity that is proved to be unprovable and it has GOT to be true!
Awesome


----------



## ross the deer slayer (May 16, 2012)

God always was, always is, and always will be. I understand it being difficult to wrap your mind around God actually being real! I understand I've questioned it before i've been confused..but at the end of the day, who else is there to give credit for life, love, friends, and creation? When someone dies, what do atheists think happens? Do you think the person has another life as a human or that they just disappear into nothing? Seriously i've never asked an atheist this question before so I honestly don't know. And I ain't makin' fun of ya'll and your beliefes so don't make fun of the Christian Faith. It is very disrespectful.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 16, 2012)

bullethead said:


> NOW I GET IT!!!!!!
> Insert ANY Deity that is proved to be unprovable and it has GOT to be true!
> Awesome



Are you having a converstation with yourself? Awesome.


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> God always was, always is, and always will be. I understand it being difficult to wrap your mind around God actually being real! I understand I've questioned it before i've been confused..but at the end of the day, who else is there to give credit for life, love, friends, and creation? When someone dies, what do atheists think happens? Do you think the person has another life as a human or that they just disappear into nothing? Seriously i've never asked an atheist this question before so I honestly don't know. And I ain't makin' fun of ya'll and your beliefes so don't make fun of the Christian Faith. It is very disrespectful.



Which God?


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> Are you having a converstation with yourself? Awesome.



Noooooooo
I was reciting the believers creed.


----------



## ross the deer slayer (May 16, 2012)

By the way..notice my signature, the U.S. Army Special Forces motto..de Oppresso Liber..to liberate the oppressed. Isaiah 58:6 "...to loose the chains of injustice...to set the oppressed free..."  The USA is Christian don't y'all know that?  Psalm 3:1-4 "O Lord, how many are my foes!  How many rise up against me!  Many are saying of me, "God will not deliver him."  But you are a shield around me, O Lord; you bestow glory on me and lift up my head.  To the Lord I cry aloud, and he answers me from his holy hill." I felt like this verse suited our conversations..


----------



## atlashunter (May 16, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> God always was, always is, and always will be. I understand it being difficult to wrap your mind around God actually being real! I understand I've questioned it before i've been confused..but at the end of the day, who else is there to give credit for life, love, friends, and creation? When someone dies, what do atheists think happens? Do you think the person has another life as a human or that they just disappear into nothing? Seriously i've never asked an atheist this question before so I honestly don't know. And I ain't makin' fun of ya'll and your beliefes so don't make fun of the Christian Faith. It is very disrespectful.



Has there ever been a time when you weren't alive? What was that like for you?


----------



## bullethead (May 16, 2012)

Ross, I am lost. Where can I find the official declaration that "The USA is Christian"?

How many Gods do you believe in?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

dexrusjak said:


> I disrespect religion as much as I disrespect other ridiculous beliefs.  Christianity is a fairy tale.
> 
> As for the rest of your post...link.
> 
> One more thing: if God created us, who created God?



God is a self sustaining being, He was not created.

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42

Start reading at "the argument from stage one" about a 1/4 of the way down the page.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> God is a self sustaining being, He was not created.
> 
> http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=42
> 
> Start reading at "the argument from stage one" about a 1/4 of the way down the page.



I substituted the word "god" with ten other names of Gods and the article reads the same.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I substituted the word "god" with ten other names of Gods and the article reads the same.



Then you didn't read the whole article.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Then you didn't read the whole article.



Actually I read it the first time you posted it and referenced it the five or six other times you put the link up.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Actually I read it the first time you posted it and referenced it the five or six other times you put the link up.



Read the thrird stage over again. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to insert any god into that part of the article.

It would however in the first two arguments because the author did not put forth any god, only a very good argument that there is an intelligent self-sustaining eternal being.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

string,

Are you familiar with the ideas of special pleading and argument by assertion?


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Read the thrird stage over again. Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to insert any god into that part of the article.
> 
> It would however in the first two arguments because the author did not put forth any god, only a very good argument that there is an intelligent self-sustaining eternal being.



Jesus story is not unique. I can easily insert another individual with the same accomplishments. Will that make evidence for them as concrete?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> string,
> 
> Are you familiar with the ideas of special pleading and argument by assertion?



A little bit of an argument by assertion, but not special pleading. Are you insisting that is what Mr. Willard has done in the article?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Jesus story is not unique.* I can easily insert another individual with the same accomplishments*. Will that make evidence for them as concrete?



I would be interested in hearing it.


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> By the way..notice my signature, the U.S. Army Special Forces motto..de Oppresso Liber..to liberate the oppressed. Isaiah 58:6 "...to loose the chains of injustice...to set the oppressed free..."  The USA is Christian don't y'all know that?  Psalm 3:1-4 "O Lord, how many are my foes!  How many rise up against me!  Many are saying of me, "God will not deliver him."  But you are a shield around me, O Lord; you bestow glory on me and lift up my head.  To the Lord I cry aloud, and he answers me from his holy hill." I felt like this verse suited our conversations..



Negative ghost rider.  The US has a christian majority, yes.  But Our fore fathers were not big on majorities.  That is why they set up a Republic.  They created a country were religion is personal, and definetly not part of the country itself, especially the government.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> A little bit of an argument by assertion, but not special pleading. Are you insisting that is what Mr. Willard has done in the article?



Anyone who puts forward an argument that nature must have had an ultimate beginning but not their god without demonstrating why in either case is guilty of both. Neither have been demonstrated to be true, only asserted.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Anyone who puts forward an argument that nature must have had an ultimate beginning but not their god without demonstrating why in either case is guilty of both. Neither have been demonstrated to be true, only asserted.



Yes, it is only his argument, but I would say it is a very good one.

He does however give an explaination as to why there is an uncaused being, and to why the physical had to have a beginning point.

When you say "without demonstrating" are you speaking of a science experiment?


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, it is only his argument, but I would say it is a very good one.
> 
> He does however give an explaination as to why there is an uncaused being, and to why the physical had to have a beginning point.
> 
> When you say "without demonstrating" are you speaking of a science experiment?



I mean a scientific explanation of why it must be so that the physical had to have a beginning point. This isn't a view that has won out or is even widely accepted in the field of cosmology. To say that everything must have an ultimate beginning point except for God is special pleading.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I mean a scientific explanation of why it must be so that the physical had to have a beginning point. This isn't a view that has won out or is even widely accepted in the field of cosmology. To say that everything must have an ultimate beginning point except for God is special pleading.





> "Now any general understanding of the dependencies of physical states would require something like Aristotle's well-known four "causes." Restricting ourselves to the temporal order, however, we find, among other things, *that every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it conditions.* This means that for any given state, e.g. Voyager II being past Triton, all of the necessary conditions of that state must be over and done with at that state, or at the event of which the state is the ontic residue. The series of "efficient" causes, to speak with Aristotle, is completed for any given event or state that obtains. At the state in question, we are not waiting for any of these causes to happen, to come into being.
> 
> Moreover, this completed set of causes is highly structured in time and in ontic dependence, through relationships which are irreflexive, asymmetric and transitive. Thus, no physical state is temporally or ontically prior to itself, and if one, a, is prior to another, b, b is not prior to a. Further, if a is prior to b and b to c, then a is prior to c. This rigorous structure of the past is eternally fixed and specifies a framework within which every event of coming into existence and ceasing to exist finds it place. *Most importantly for present interests, since the series of causes for any given state is completed, it not only exhibits a rigorous structure as indicated, but that structure also has a first term. That is, there is in it at least one "cause," one state of being, which does not derive its existence from something else. It is self-existent.*
> If this were not so, Voyager's passing Triton, or any other physical event or state, could not be realized, since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, i.e. incompletable, series of events. In simplest terms, its causes would never "get to" it. (As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before dominoe x is struck, it will never be struck. The line of fallings will never get to it.) Since Voyager II is past Triton, there is a state of being upon which that state depends but which itself depends on nothing prior to it. Thus, concrete physical reality implicates a being radically different from itself: a being which, unlike any physical state, is self-existent."



Its a very logical argument, at least the way I am understanding it. Where is he going wrong? Or should I say, where is he making the leap?


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Its a very logical argument, at least the way I am understanding it. Where is he going wrong? Or should I say, where is he making the leap?



I think he is making a false assumption, certainly one that is not accepted as a given in cosmology.

His reason for the assumption:



> If this were not so, Voyager's passing Triton, or any other physical event or state, could not be realized, since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, i.e. incompletable, series of events. In simplest terms, its causes would never "get to" it. (As in a line of dominoes, if there is an infinite number of dominoes that must fall before dominoe x is struck, it will never be struck.



is addressed (if I remember correctly) by Lawrence Krauss in his debate with William Lane Craig. Furthermore, if we accept this line of reasoning then it discredits his own position. Because he is suggesting that a God which is eternal, that is a God which exists in infinite time. If that is so then how could the point in God's existence at which he created the universe ever have arrived?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I think he is making a false assumption, certainly one that is not accepted as a given in cosmology.
> 
> His reason for the assumption:
> 
> ...



Thus the need for an eternal, _non-physical _being, with obvious(at least in mine and his case) intelligence. i.e. a Creator.

The non-physical has no formal origin as in the physical, therfor we can assimilate that since the physical must have an origin, that that origin must come from the non physical.

See the second highlighted part in post #160.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Thus the need for an eternal, _non-physical _being, with obvious(at least in mine and his case) intelligence. i.e. a Creator.
> 
> The non-physical has no formal origin as in the physical, therfor we can assimilate that since the physical must have an origin, that that origin must come from the non physical.
> 
> See the second highlighted part in post #160.



Nope, the limitations would still apply even to the nonsensical concept of a "non-physical being". If we posit that God predates the universe (and to an infinite degree no less) that means there was some time before the universe which God conceived the universe and made a decision to create it. If God has existed for an infinite period of time looking backwards then according to Willard he never would have reached the point in time which he conceived and chose to create the universe.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Nope, the limitations would still apply even to the nonsensical concept of a "non-physical being". If we posit that God predates the universe (and to an infinite degree no less) that means there was some time before the universe which God conceived the universe and made a decision to create it. If God has existed for an infinite period of time looking backwards then according to Willard *he never would have reached the point in time *which he conceived and chose to create the universe.



There is no point in time for a God that is eternal, there is nothing to be reach. Your taking the argument for the physical not being infinite, but having an origin, and asserting it to an eternal non physical being. i.e. God.

Mr. Willard asserts that the non physical being in which all physical matter has arrived must be self sustaining, in which case you cannot use the same method of "going backward in time" to come to the same conclusions for the two.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> There is no point in time for a God that is eternal, there is nothing to be reach. Your taking the argument for the physical not being infinite, but having an origin, and asserting it to an eternal non physical being. i.e. God.
> 
> Mr. Willard asserts that the non physical being in which all physical matter has arrived must be self sustaining, in which case you cannot use the same method of "going backward in time" to come to the same conclusions for the two.



Then he couldn't have created a universe at a particular point in time.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Then he couldn't have created a universe at a particular point in time.



Then how could the physical have a starting point?

God doesn't have a physical point in time reference, therefor He could and would be able to create the physical without the same restraints the physical.

To me, that is the point, there has to be a self sustaining non physical being, outside of time, i.e. eternal, for the physical to have a point of origin.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Then how could the physical have a starting point?



I'm not the one arguing that it has to.




stringmusic said:


> God doesn't have a physical point in time reference, therefor He could and would be able to create the physical without the same restraints the physical.
> 
> To me, that is the point, there has to be a self sustaining non physical being, outside of time, i.e. eternal, for the physical to have a point of origin.



This is nonsense. Have you considered what it would mean to be "outside of time"? How could God do anything, even having so much as a thought, without the presence of time? If God is a being capable of thought or a sequence of thoughts then that would require time. A point in time prior to the thought. A point in time when the thought occurred. A point in time the next thought occurred. And so on. What you are really arguing by saying there was an absolute beginning of our universe and that there was something outside our universe which caused it is not that there was no time prior to the universe but that there was time in a separate greater context than the context of our universe. You are claiming a being that existed at a point in time _preceding_ the universe. Fine. From the point in time which God created the universe start counting backwards. Do you ever get to an ultimate beginning? If not then you are arguing for a God that exists in infinite time and Willards argument still applies. The infinite sequence of prior events or points in time means that God never would have arrived at the creation of the universe time. I don't buy his argument by the way. But if you do, apply it consistently.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

String, here is another way of looking at the problem.

What was God's first thought? No such thing? His thoughts go back ad infinitum? If that were so then God could not realize any particular thought since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, i.e. incompletable, series of thoughts.

You didn't really think it would be that easy, did you?


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I'm not the one arguing that it has to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



After sitting idle for inconceivable amounts of time he decided to create the universe and then had to create a creature in it's own image for the purpose of having itself worshiped. Apparently now content in sitting back and watching the chaos of his creatures killing each other over worships it better and then eternally punishing the ones that did not worship correctly.
Marvelous.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> String, here is another way of looking at the problem.
> 
> What was God's first thought? No such thing? His thoughts go back ad infinitum? If that were so then God could not realize any particular thought since that would require the actual completion of an infinite, i.e. incompletable, series of thoughts.
> 
> You didn't really think it would be that easy, did you?



"that every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it conditions."

Do thoughts fall in the catagory of this statement? Does a thought have to immediately precede itself in time to fully exist when the thought occurs? 

Willard gives an argument as to why the physical has a beginning, your taking the non physical and applying that argument to say that it doesn't work. Strawman?


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> After sitting idle for inconceivable amounts of time he decided to create the universe and then had to create a creature in it's own image for the purpose of having itself worshiped. Apparently now content in sitting back and watching the chaos of his creatures killing each other over worships it better and then eternally punishing the ones that did not worship correctly.
> Marvelous.



Whether he sits idle for all the previous time or spent it busily making other universes makes no difference. The point is that if his existence goes back to infinity he will never reach the point in time when he creates our universe according to Mr Willard.


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> I'm not the one arguing that it has to.



Then I'll ask the question again, where does Willard go wrong? Aside from your argument that God would fall into Willards "the physical cannot be infinite" argument, how can the physical be infinite? If "every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it conditions." is true, who or what started the physical that we know to exist?


----------



## stringmusic (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Whether he sits idle for all the previous time or spent it busily making other universes makes no difference. The point is that if his existence goes back to infinity he will never reach the point in time when he creates our universe according to Mr Willard.



Why not? Willard does not make this assertion about the non physical.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> "that every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which immediately precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state which it conditions."
> 
> Do thoughts fall in the catagory of this statement? Does a thought have to immediately precede itself in time to fully exist when the thought occurs?
> 
> Willard gives an argument as to why the physical has a beginning, your taking the non physical and applying that argument to say that it doesn't work. Strawman?



Simply declaring God as "non-physical" doesn't get you out of the problem. This is just special pleading.

A "non-physical" God that exists as a spirit in some other dimension must by definition still have time in order to think and act. Time is a necessary element of change. This is what Willard is speaking of when he refers to different states. Well for God to change states, to think, to decide, to act, the same rules apply. So unless you're arguing for an eternal God that is absent of thought or action you still have all your work ahead of you. Mr Willard is peeing on his own feet without realizing it.


----------



## atlashunter (May 17, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Why not? Willard does not make this assertion about the non physical.



Of course he doesn't. That would make his self contradiction too obvious. Physical or not, does this God think or act? If not then he couldn't be the creator of a universe that had a beginning. In fact he wouldn't be capable of being the cause of anything. If so, then he is still subject to the same problem of infinite time that Willard subjects Voyager II to.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2012)

atlashunter said:


> Whether he sits idle for all the previous time or spent it busily making other universes makes no difference. The point is that if his existence goes back to infinity he will never reach the point in time when he creates our universe according to Mr Willard.



Tru-Dat!


----------



## ross the deer slayer (May 17, 2012)

Bullethead: I believe in the One and Only God, whose Son is Jesus.
And I know that one bible verse doesn't mean that the USA is all Christian, it just supports it. I also realize that not the entire government is Christian, but if America wasn't founded based on Christianity then why does the Pledge of Aliegence say "under God"? Did that come long after the declaration?


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Bullethead: I believe in the One and Only God, whose Son is Jesus.


I understand that.
You have got to understand though(to paraphrase two good quotes) that for the reasons you do not believe in other Gods are the same reasons people do not believe in yours. And, you have a lot in common with atheists, the only difference is they believe in ONE less God than you do.



ross the deer slayer said:


> And I know that one bible verse doesn't mean that the USA is all Christian, it just supports it.


How does a Bible verse support it?



ross the deer slayer said:


> I also realize that not the entire government is Christian, but if America wasn't founded based on Christianity then why does the Pledge of Aliegence say "under God"? Did that come long after the declaration?


The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 By  Francis Bellamy...a Baptist Minister.
The words "under God" were added in 1954 by Congress


----------



## TheBishop (May 17, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 By  Francis Bellamy...a Baptist Minister.
> The words "under God" were added in 1954 by Congress



He was also a socialist.


----------



## bullethead (May 17, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> He was also a socialist.



In the words of Ed McMahon.....You arrrrrre Correct Sir!


----------



## ross the deer slayer (May 18, 2012)

Well I didn't know all that thanks. Do y'all have any opinions on what religion, if any, political leaders should have. Or do you think they just need good morals? Not to stray from the original topic here but i'm just wondering...


----------



## TheBishop (May 19, 2012)

ross the deer slayer said:


> Well I didn't know all that thanks. Do y'all have any opinions on what religion, if any, political leaders should have. Or do you think they just need good morals? Not to stray from the original topic here but i'm just wondering...



Religion should matter not in politics. All I care is that they understand the nature of government, in relation to liberty and justice.  So far there is little promise that will ever happen.  All I have seen are those that are in love with government and what they think they can make it do for the people.  Government can do nothing much for the people, that people cannot do for themselves.

"There is very little government can do for society, that which society cannot do for itself."  - Thomas Paine "The Rights of Man"


----------

