Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Guest Valk0010]

Stranger. What part of "free will is only the ability to choose to do something" not compute with you. Lets hammer this out till you get it. All the stuff you said in 1799, does not change that defintion of free will. There is a fallacy called, appeal to consequence. Basically that fallacy describes how what happens because of a true statement does not effect whether that statement is true. Case example. Evolution is wrong because it leads to eugenics. Eugenics as bad as it is of a idea can't disprove evolution because the evidence that we have proves evolution. Just because we may not like some conclusion doesn't mean the conclusion is invalid. What 1799 amounts to, is "I don't don't like the conclusion" therefore its wrong. Talking about things like accountability is irrelevant. For 1799 to be anything other then irrelevant, you will have to argue for your own definition of free will. Accountability is irrelevant in any discussion of what free will is because free will is a concept which we learn to understand how people go about doing things. And its sometimes is desicons that you are accountable for. But accountability can't change what free will is, its a separate issue.

[the stranger]

Zalk, I'll agree with discussing this a bit longer. It would be good to find some common ground. I think to start, and be warned it is easy for u to go over my head so to speak lol, I would like for you to give me an example and definition of what free will means to you. In other words, give an example of free will apart from consiquences in life as we know it? How can results and free will be unconnected. I am trying to see this buddy but I cannot see a separation. To me, its like deciding to walk bare foot. the result if you not use to it will most likely be injured feet. Same with punching a wall when angery. free will? yes. but not with out results. Help me understand what you are saying my friend and give an everyday example. thanx

[Guest Valk0010]

Zalk, I'll agree with discussing this a bit longer. It would be good to find some common ground. I think to start, and be warned it is easy for u to go over my head so to speak lol, I would like for you to give me an example and definition of what free will means to you. In other words, give an example of free will apart from consiquences in life as we know it? How can results and free will be unconnected. I am trying to see this buddy but I cannot see a separation. To me, its like deciding to walk bare foot. the result if you not use to it will most likely be injured feet. Same with punching a wall when angery. free will? yes. but not with out results. Help me understand what you are saying my friend and give an everyday example. thanx

Here is another way of looking at it. If your too literal with this example you miss the point. Imagine a tree with a bunch of trunks and branches and all of its normal goodies. Free will, which means not only too me, but to most people I have read who discuss the subject, just the ability to choose different things. Its the ability to cause different results. Now imagine every possible option you could ever imagine, being that tree and its branches. Free will, if we have anything like it (there are some that are for example determinists that don't) is what allows us to pick which branch to fall into. That is how one is able to separate consequence from the ability to do the consequence. Free will is just the ability to create consequences. Its the ability to go into separate parts of that tree. That is why debating consquences and alot of the objections you brought up since we have started this discussion about the problem of evil ring hollow to me. We aren't talking about the tree itself, but how we go about the tree. Any clearer?

[the stranger]

I think to some extent. Free will, the ability to cause different results. Help me if I am wrong with these conclusions and show me where we differ.

1 We both agree that with choices brings different results

2 You see the decision or choices we make as separate from the results, but acknowledge that choices come or bring results.

3 The difference in our opion is I place results as part of choices in a one group setting. You agree that our choices have results, but are not related with the same definition.

 

Are these three things correct?

[Guest Valk0010]

I think to some extent. Free will, the ability to cause different results. Help me if I am wrong with these conclusions and show me where we differ.

1 We both agree that with choices brings different results

2 You see the decision or choices we make as separate from the results, but acknowledge that choices come or bring results.

3 The difference in our opion is I place results as part of choices in a one group setting. You agree that our choices have results, but are not related with the same definition.

 

Are these three things correct?

You got the general idea outside of one thing. I don't see decisions or choice as separate from results. I see the ability to makes choices and decisions as separate from the results.

[the stranger]

So, I think your saying, one choice (one catagory) can result in a number of results (another catagory) so though they are in effect cause and effect or action and result, it is a far cry from pinbing one result on one choice as results accure with each choice, not only a number of possibilities, but results, or effects, will acure either way, even if no one is making a choice, thus though related, they are separate. Is this correct?

[Guest Valk0010]

So, I think your saying, one choice (one catagory) can result in a number of results (another catagory) so though they are in effect cause and effect or action and result, it is a far cry from pinbing one result on one choice as results accure with each choice, not only a number of possibilities, but results, or effects, will acure either way, even if no one is making a choice, thus though related, they are separate. Is this correct?

I may be misunderstanding you here. But yes more or less, debates over free will as far as I understand them and in the way I am framing them, are basically looking at causes but not the effects. Its looking at the ability to choose, but not looking at choices. So in a way yes it is like studying cause without studying effect. So if say, cause was the ability to murder someone, effect would be the murder. So it would be looking looking into someone's ability to sin without looking into the sin itself.

[the stranger]

I think I am starting to understand a bit more but still ain't got it. I gotta go for now for a bit but please, if u can think of any more examples, throw them my way. I think I understand best that way. If the cause is the choice to mudure and the effect is the murdure where does the after effects fall into play. I appreciate it Zalk, as I am certainly trying to grasp this is a complete answere that I can lay out and understand. thanks for being patient and I'll talk a bit later.

[Guest Valk0010]

I think I am starting to understand a bit more but still ain't got it. I gotta go for now for a bit but please, if u can think of any more examples, throw them my way. I think I understand best that way. If the cause is the choice to mudure and the effect is the murdure where does the after effects fall into play. I appreciate it Zalk, as I am certainly trying to grasp this is a complete answere that I can lay out and understand. thanks for being patient and I'll talk a bit later.

Another way of looking it, is a bit like, free will is the gasoline for the engine of a car. And the car is us. Do we need to know anything about the car to learn about the gasoline? No we don't. After effects would be a bit like what has the car done.

[the stranger]

Hey Zalk, let me try sumerize and question quickly.

Some of your quotes in paraphrasing have been free will is just the ability to create consequences, looking at causes but not the effects, looking at the ability to choose but not the choices, looking at cause and not the effect. I don't see decisions or choice separate from the result.

 

So, from what I can gathar, though you see choices together with the results, you see the subject of free will apart from the results, though acknowledging they are not separate.

'do we need to know about the car to learn about the gasolibe' (if were the car)?

 

 

I think this is where we differ. We both agree that one cannot have choices without consequences. However, despite that, you see free will apart from that. Kind of like my choice to hit someone is a choice but free will is not looking into that choice, or the results, but only the ability to make that choice or choose.

 

Let us say we can both agree that they can be looked at as two separate things, but knowing results are a must behind the choices. Would it be wise to learn about choosing, without learning the benifits and bad effects of the choices we make and how that they effect others all around us. True, if a car you might not need to know about yourself, but could you learn about gasoline and how it relates to you with out knowing about yourself. If we teach free will apart from responsibility and results, we do not teach the entire truth of the subject, do we?

 

To me, it would be like teaching a train conductor that he can thow any track switch he chooses, even if told to do different, but not being taught that the train could derail or crash injuring many people and possibly self.

 

Do you see kind of where I am at? Help me out more with how these two things can be taught separatly or if somehow I missed a key point. thanks Valk

[centauri]

There is most certainly more to talk about concerning free will. Some valid points have been made as such. Truth though, if free will was truly had, with or with out religion, we would all be in trouble. Every action we make in this 'free world' has results. Bad decisions lead to bad results, like prison or worse. By looking at God and saying, He gives us free will, Him or hell, it is true in part. In part, this is true of all free will.

All free will doesn't involve coercion and manipulation, along with the employment of threats to produce a particular outcome.

The Bible God uses threats to coerce a choice.

This Bible deity also manipulates human behavior by hardening their hearts, predestines some people to certain choices, promises to send powerful delusions in order to keep some people from being saved, and sends evil spirits to irritate people.

How in the world you can claim that some sort of universal "free will" exists in the face of this is beyond me.

That's why the popular Christian claim of free will is so annoying to me.

It's nothing more than fluff, subjectively applied and used as a selling point to make the Christian God look fair and balanced.

 

If you'd like to stick with the mantra that God gives people free will, then the mafia Godfather does too.

The same goes for Stalin, Hitler, the Inquisition, and every other dictator that gives people the so-called "free" choice to comply with their demands or be punished.

This is your use of the term "free will" taken to its logical conclusion.

 

If free will is defined is free from results than certainly that definition could never apply here. Someone has a choice to enjoy their sick fantasies and raping a little girl. This is free will, right? However, that does not mean there are no results. And in fact, with that definition of free will, there could be no justice, could there? Free will in your definition is chaos, rude and controlling behavoir that never has to worry about accountability.

Choices have consequences and when you force a set of dire consequences upon a person, you haven't gven them free will.

You've given them an ultimatum.

The issue of justice is completely subjective.

 

Using free will in relationship to a free box at a yard sale is, as they say, comparing apples to, well, my ol favorite, bananas. If every one had this 'free' will than nobody would truly be free or have free will. Hell, in a Christians description, as a place made not for humans, but for Satan and his angels. If a son, from a Christian prospective, rebells against his father year after year by always disobeying, lying, stealing, never learning and never appreciate of things the father has given, what happens when this boy becomes an adult? If training and punishment had no effect on the sons attitude, what will happen. knowing this kid will never get a job or be able to live on his own, or be a use for the world, and at the same time not being able to live in his fathers house due to age, trying to be the one in control, causing trouble in the house and never accepting responsibility, then only one alternitive is left. The son must be kicked out of his fathers place and fend for himself on the streets, hopefully to learn.

From a mafia perspective, if a shopkeeper continues to disobey the mafia boss, will not pay for the protection services of the mob, and never appreciates all that the mob does for him and the neighborhood, then the shopkeeper must have his shop torched and go out into the streets and fend for himself.

 

At the end, if even this has no avail, most likely he will die an early death and be bitter his whole life. Even if his father knew what decisions would be made but showed great love and mercy just the same, is it his fathers fault? Hell is a place designed for Satan and his followers. At the end, if we cannot be with our Father, where else is there to go?

The Godfather of the mafia designed a place for the disobedient, which is at the bottom of a river with concrete around their feet.

The Godfather gave the rebellious shopkeeper every opportunity to make the right choice but they refused.

[Guest Valk0010]

Hey Zalk, let me try sumerize and question quickly.

Some of your quotes in paraphrasing have been free will is just the ability to create consequences, looking at causes but not the effects, looking at the ability to choose but not the choices, looking at cause and not the effect. I don't see decisions or choice separate from the result.

 

So, from what I can gathar, though you see choices together with the results, you see the subject of free will apart from the results, though acknowledging they are not separate.

'do we need to know about the car to learn about the gasolibe' (if were the car)?

 

 

I think this is where we differ. We both agree that one cannot have choices without consequences. However, despite that, you see free will apart from that. Kind of like my choice to hit someone is a choice but free will is not looking into that choice, or the results, but only the ability to make that choice or choose.

 

Let us say we can both agree that they can be looked at as two separate things, but knowing results are a must behind the choices. Would it be wise to learn about choosing, without learning the benifits and bad effects of the choices we make and how that they effect others all around us. True, if a car you might not need to know about yourself, but could you learn about gasoline and how it relates to you with out knowing about yourself. If we teach free will apart from responsibility and results, we do not teach the entire truth of the subject, do we?

 

To me, it would be like teaching a train conductor that he can thow any track switch he chooses, even if told to do different, but not being taught that the train could derail or crash injuring many people and possibly self.

 

Do you see kind of where I am at? Help me out more with how these two things can be taught separatly or if somehow I missed a key point. thanks Valk

Wikipedia defines free will as the following "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints." Your really trying to force more into that definition then is really required. Choices have consequences, but I am not, and again you don't seem to get it. I am not talking about choices themselves. If I was talking choices I could talk about all the bad options one could ever do. I am not discussing the choices, I have discussed the ability to choose. The ability to commit murder, unlike what you say is not the act of committing murder. Having the ability to do something, and doing something are two different things. How you don't see the difference is shocking.

 

Free will is not the choices you make, its what you exercise to make choices. The train conductor is exercising his free will pulling the switch, but what happens when he pulls the switch has no bearing the fact that he decided to pull the switch. Now you could say that pulling the switch does effect him in someway yes. But it doesn't effect his ability to choose.

 

You seem to be looking at this question holistically when it really has to be treated in isolation. One doesn't need to learn about good and evil to learn about how people go about deciding between the too. We are talking about the ability of agents to make choices, not the choices they make. Those too things are just categorically different.

 

Going back to the grocery store analogy I used earlier. You seem to see no difference between buying the battery acid and the act of deciding to buy the battery acid and the process in which one determines to act that way. You seem to treat those as one thing. When really I am talking about the process in which one determines to act, not acts.

 

And btw, from what I understand free will would fall under cognitive philisophy/science and not ethics. So, how one would teach this, is different depending on what one is discussing.

[the stranger]

, free will is not the choices offered, or the results, but only the ability to be able to choose. Right? Is so, however, you through the selection of choices in the mix when you limit God on the choices we should be allowed to make. In any event, I do think I understand your definition now. Thanks for your patients.

Cents. Give me just a minute buddy.

[the stranger]

Cents, I think really each assertion needs to be looked at individually to truly understand. My nephews have been so so mad at me and they would tell all their friends what a monster I was. How could I do such a thing or make them do such a thing. Somethings really need to be addressed with a different view my friend but I want to get to some others first quick. I do understand your thoughts to some degree. I never use to know the bible that good but I still used very simular arguments. Truthfully until I knew and experienced the depth of Gods love I really could not understand. I use to get very upset when I use to hear preachers say I was deserving of hell when they even know me, and not until I partitally understood the holyness of God which can not have sin in it's presence did I began to understand, and more so when I noticed how not so rightous I was, despite always justifying myself.

Talk with you later buddy

[Guest Valk0010]

, free will is not the choices offered, or the results, but only the ability to be able to choose.

BINGO you got it.

 

 

Is so, however, you through the selection of choices in the mix when you limit God on the choices we should be allowed to make. In any event, I do think I understand your definition now.

Well I only did that cause we were debating the problem of evil. Though I did that with a entirely different purpose in mind. These last few posts, I have mostly been harping on what is the correct definition of free will. I wouldn't call it limiting god either. I am just saying its totally rational to believe god could do better. To restate my point, now that you seem to know what the definition is: I propose that is logically possible to have both free will and no evil action.

 

The ability to choose is not effected by limiting the choices available, you see. That is in a sentence what I was trying to get you to see. Free will is only the ability to choose, nothing more. And if that is the case evil can't really be a requirement. You have the ability to say have free will and only have good options to work with, or just bad options to work with, or a mix. Just because one can't murder, and rape etc, doesn't mean he doesn't have the ability to choose between different other options. As long as one still has that ability to choose they still have free will, and limits are irrelevant for the reason I pointed out about, the not being able to throw cars. If biological or design limits were against free will then so would be not being able to throw cars be against our free will. That is insane thing to say, not being able to throw cars being against our free will. I see making evil impossible as nothing different then us not being designed to fly or breath under water. Why not just add on to the list? Sure the world would look a lot different, but the kind of free will that people say evil is needed for can exist without evil is basically all I am saying. So yes I did consider evil actions because that is what you have to do, to have a debate on the problem of evil. To have a debate on what is free will is a different argument.

[the stranger]

Hey Ourborus, thanks for peaking my interest again on evolution. This probably will be or could be ongoing for a while based on my findings. What I have been finding out is that what one believes or does not believe as fact on the subject often relates about how they view the reliability of the tests used. Also, how these test were done and in what way was it set up?

 

For example, listed facts on both sides can be oppisite, like the age of the earth, billions or thousands? Both sides say their testing proof their case. Evolutionist claim proof of cellular life for 250 million years, while creationist proof that historic fossils and records only go back thousands and show a breaking down instead of a building up or evolution.

 

Some strong points on evolution was some life forms that were known to be years ago are no longer existent (dinosaurs) and all living formd came from other living forms. Points on the flip side was symbolic relationships prove all species had to be created at the same time for survival and the second law of thermodynamics tell us systems always go from order to disorder.

 

When researching ape men there were many tells of hoaxes that were prooven and others questionably pieced together, though otgers tell a different story.

 

I could find no real interesting questions for the creationest except the evolutionist stated facts of the age of the earth and ect. but on the flip side came ' How did they first living thing come into being if all living came from living and as we talked earlier reguarding what should be billions of transitional fossils, more so in the lijes of fish becoming mammels or birds becoming humans.

 

All in all, quite interesting my friend, but I believe we will have to disect this piece by piece. thanks aga

[Guest Valk0010]

I found stranger if your care to hear my view on creationism, they could care less about real science as long as they feel as they have done there job of just purely discrediting.

[the stranger]

Hey valk, I think I get your side now. If I were to say that by God not putting limits on the choices we make concerning our thoughts, and actions up on them, and because God does not limit us as to reguard to our thoughts we must have the ability to choose to sin, you would say if God puts physical limitations on us (and in all fairness, mental too) why than could He also have put limitations on our thought process to not allow bad or selfesh thoughts inside?

 

Well, I suppose He could of done this. However, I see physical limitations as temporary and not eternal where free will to ones thoughts seem to have been employed from the beginning with the angels, who had no deformities.

 

In my take, our choices are an eternal setting with eternity in mind, where our physical settings are just for a short time to perhaps, help us see our limitations and desire so much more.

 

If God did do this, in my opion, He would be taking away the eternal inside being versing this temporary body, but thanks again for your patients as I believe I finally understand your points and question.

[Guest Valk0010]

Hey valk, I think I get your side now. If I were to say that by God not putting limits on the choices we make concerning our thoughts, and actions up on them, and because God does not limit us as to reguard to our thoughts we must have the ability to choose to sin, you would say if God puts physical limitations on us (and in all fairness, mental too) why than could He also have put limitations on our thought process to not allow bad or selfesh thoughts inside?

 

The ways it could be possibly done are various, you could defend several. I have tried to only defend the possibility. Once I read how it could be logically possible for us to be designed to potentially even feel evil and know it exists but not be able to commit such a action, its a idea akin and possible inspired by what is called "middle knowledge." The concept of god creating the world as to know what everybody would freely choose. That is just one example, but again I was only defending the possibility that there could be free will and no need for evil. I wasn't defending a particular way that, if there is a god, he could have solved the problem, which is why i sort of went back and forth on it.. I was only saying it was within his capabilities to create a world in which there is free will and no evil and it makes no sense for him to not do it. And again I said, that only means the free will defense fails.

 

Well, I suppose He could of done this. However, I see physical limitations as temporary and not eternal where free will to ones thoughts seem to have been employed from the beginning with the angels, who had no deformities.

 

Well as I said earlier, you could say it could be done several different ways. If you want to here my own view on the subject its a bit on the compatablistic side, but it works for what christians like to believe (libertarian free will). I would think a god should have just created us with a mind incapable of bad actions. To use the example of murder. Say the desire to murder just doesn't come up because its no one is capable of even thinking of doing such a thing. If you can't think of option, you can't do an options. If the choice doesn't come up, you still have the ability to choose but of only choices in which have come up. That kind of choice is just designed to not be in our software. It would be a bit like Data in star trek. He is designed to not do bad things but he can do anything he wants outside of what he is designed to not even conceive off doing. That would be my own personal view of how it could be done. Though one could think of other possibilities. As I said previously, omnipotence is a interesting thing to work with. And really while it wouldn't be a incredibly happy existence(though I am not sure we could have ever known the different if it was all we ever known), it would be a more logical way to accomplish the goals that god seems to have.

 

In my take, our choices are an eternal setting with eternity in mind, where our physical settings are just for a short time to perhaps, help us see our limitations and desire so much more.

 

If God did do this, in my opion, He would be taking away the eternal inside being versing this temporary body, but thanks again for your patients as I believe I finally understand your points and question.

To me that just seems to be a preference. And the idea of the problem of evil is that it shows the idea of the christian god to be illogical and impossible and therefore nonexistant.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Hey Ourborus, thanks for peaking my interest again on evolution. This probably will be or could be ongoing for a while based on my findings. What I have been finding out is that what one believes or does not believe as fact on the subject often relates about how they view the reliability of the tests used. Also, how these test were done and in what way was it set up?

 

For example, listed facts on both sides can be oppisite, like the age of the earth, billions or thousands? Both sides say their testing proof their case. Evolutionist claim proof of cellular life for 250 million years, while creationist proof that historic fossils and records only go back thousands and show a breaking down instead of a building up or evolution.

 

Some strong points on evolution was some life forms that were known to be years ago are no longer existent (dinosaurs) and all living formd came from other living forms. Points on the flip side was symbolic relationships prove all species had to be created at the same time for survival and the second law of thermodynamics tell us systems always go from order to disorder.

 

When researching ape men there were many tells of hoaxes that were prooven and others questionably pieced together, though otgers tell a different story.

 

I could find no real interesting questions for the creationest except the evolutionist stated facts of the age of the earth and ect. but on the flip side came ' How did they first living thing come into being if all living came from living and as we talked earlier reguarding what should be billions of transitional fossils, more so in the lijes of fish becoming mammels or birds becoming humans.

 

All in all, quite interesting my friend, but I believe we will have to disect this piece by piece. thanks aga

 

I'm not the most qualified to debate science, and I'm getting ready to go on vacation, but I do just want to point out that creationist claims have been thoroughly debunked. They do not start with science and base their conclusions on honest assessments of the evidence, but rather they start with the very faulty premise of scriptural reliability and then try to manipulate the data to try to get it to sound like it fits their preconceived assumptions. Creationism and evolutionary science do not have equal footing, not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Here's a good place to start reading about the serious flaws in creationists' arguments:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

 

After today, I won't be on the board for a while, so I won't be able to engage in any debating. Others can handle this subject better than me anyway, but I mainly wanted to get that link to you.

 

Take care....

[bornagainathiest]

thanks for your insight Born again. I am certainly going to my best to aim future responses with hopefully absalute facts that are agreed upon by both sides. PS Maybe you should of been a teacher -- or maybe, just maybe, you are with out knowing it

 

Hello again Stranger!

 

Am I a teacher, without knowing I am? Well, that's possible. Who knows?

 

Anyway, I see that you and Valk are getting into Free Will in a big way, so I'll bow out of this thread for now and leave you guys to chew things over. If I gave you more stuff to think about, that'd just foul things up. This way, it's a clear and open road for the two of you to walk down together. Just holler when you want to me to come back in here, ok? I'll be keeping a watching eye, so I'll see when you do that.

 

Btw, I have something personal to say to you, Stranger.

 

I reckon it's a difficult thing for anyone to do what you're doing here. Most folks wouldn't. Most people would stick with what they feel comfortable and safe with. They'd hold onto what they believe without testing and checking it. They wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude (guts!) you've shown. Too often most people are afraid of losing what they believed was right - so they hunker down and hope for the best.

 

You've shown a LOT of inner strength to do what you've done here recently. Well done, my friend!

 

I salute you!

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Ficino, to name a few scriptures that I believe firmly imply free will or choice please see Joshua 24:15; Ezekiel 18:4,5,9 ; 2 Timothy 2:11-13; John 15:5-6; 2 Peter 2:20-22. Thanks.

 

Stranger, you're moving to Tennessee? All the best in getting ready and actually making the move!

 

Thank you for these references. They talk about people's choices of whether or not to live in the way that the scriptural writers say is God's way, and they say that God will bless or punish accordingly. "Free will" is not mentioned in these verses. You said that you firmly believe they "imply" free will. In drawing that implication from these verses, are you relying on one or both of the following premises: A. Whenever anyone chooses to do either P or not-P, the person could have chosen the contrary alternative. B. Punishment is justified only if the punished person could have chosen the contrary alternative to the action for which s/he is punished.

 

The biblical presentation of God's sovereignty represents every event as happening according to God's will. As BAA said, now that you and Valk are going into depth about free will, I won't develop this point except to say that the doctrine of the sovereignty of God refutes premise A. above. Premise A in fact just amounts to a restatement of the "free will" position. So you can't rely on such a premise in interpreting the above verses as evidence for free will, since you'd be assuming already the conclusion you were trying to prove. But maybe you didn't rely on Premise A! Premise B relies on further assumptions, such as "God's punishment of 'sinners' is just," etc., and it assumes Premise A.

 

So your verses can be taken as consistent with the doctrine of free will only if that doctrine is already presupposed. Those verses are also consistent with the predestination point of view. The person who holds predestination believes that God as First Cause set up the whole universe with a chain of causes going back to creation, such that every event is the result of a chain of causes that began with God. If the believer chooses P and the unbeliever chooses not-P, both choices are choices AND are caused by a string of causes that stretches backwards to God's own creative will. (Even if someone only wants to hold that God foreknows these choices, those choices are not "free" in the sense that the people could have acted otherwise.)

[mcdaddy]

Cents, I think really each assertion needs to be looked at individually to truly understand. My nephews have been so so mad at me and they would tell all their friends what a monster I was. How could I do such a thing or make them do such a thing. Somethings really need to be addressed with a different view my friend but I want to get to some others first quick. I do understand your thoughts to some degree. I never use to know the bible that good but I still used very simular arguments. Truthfully until I knew and experienced the depth of Gods love I really could not understand. I use to get very upset when I use to hear preachers say I was deserving of hell when they even know me, and not until I partitally understood the holyness of God which can not have sin in it's presence did I began to understand, and more so when I noticed how not so rightous I was, despite always justifying myself.

Talk with you later buddy

 

Think about this: WHY can god not tolerate sin in his presence? Doesn't that limit him? Something he CANNOT do? If he can't tolerate sin, he's not omnipotent. Hence, not "god" in the classical sense.

 

A truly all powerful god could tolerate anything, since he's, oh, um, GOD.

[mcdaddy]

Also, there's plenty of instances where god walked around in human form in the bible. He was around sinners then wasn't he?

 

"he can't tolerate sin in his presence"- baloney.

[centauri]

Cents, I think really each assertion needs to be looked at individually to truly understand. My nephews have been so so mad at me and they would tell all their friends what a monster I was. How could I do such a thing or make them do such a thing. Somethings really need to be addressed with a different view my friend but I want to get to some others first quick. I do understand your thoughts to some degree. I never use to know the bible that good but I still used very simular arguments. Truthfully until I knew and experienced the depth of Gods love I really could not understand. I use to get very upset when I use to hear preachers say I was deserving of hell when they even know me, and not until I partitally understood the holyness of God which can not have sin in it's presence did I began to understand, and more so when I noticed how not so rightous I was, despite always justifying myself.

Talk with you later buddy

As an aside, since you seem to believe Christian mythology that Satan is sinful and disobedient, that creates a problem.

Regarding your view that God cannot have sin in his presence, how do you explain why God not only had Satan in his presence per the Book of Job, he conversed with him and made a wager with him?

You might want to reconsider your views about Satan and God.