Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[mcdaddy]

Satan only does what god orders or allows him to do.

 

But of course it's all myth anyways.

[the stranger]

Hey guys. I love all of your great questions which I think I will have to look a little deeper to find out, but give me just a bit and I will get back to you all though I should start with earlier post. Let me respont to our friend Zalk first.

 

Hey Zalk, just some thoughts on free will.

It is intersesting that God created animals in such away I think. But than again, can animals truly choose or do they react only on instinct? Either way, they do not know right from wrong. Ofcourse, with this comes the inability to reason or to make eternal decisions though it is true each one has their own personality. The question is, do animals have what is defined as free will, the ability to make choices. If they run just on instinc, than we seem to have nothing to truly compare free will with. Unlike animals, we were made in Gods image and for the glory of God, just as animals were made for us.

 

Do the animals, or can the animals know God personaly? I guess alot is to be said upon knowing whether or not animals have free will.

Concerning other facters, for many Christians, we believe if God took the choice from us in the ability to love Him or rebell from Him, we would never truly know His love, grace, and justice as without sin, rebelling against God, God could never show us these attributes of Himself, thus in effect, questionably taking the true option of loving Him out the window.

If free will is only the ability to make choices, and God only gave us the option to love Him, as all other options would be sin, would we truly have ability to choose? If any thought against God is sin, and only thoughts of loving God thus was allowed, the onle free will would be what to do to love God more or to show without trying to be better how much you love God. This would be free will. This to me would be hard pressed to define as free will.

Also if Gods character is all good, could he, while keeping to His character, deprive us from making our own choices about Him? Would that not be a character not withstanding love? If sin is defined any rebellion toward God, than free will would be extremely limited if at all exestint. More so if He made us in His own image.

In saying that, if the only definition of free will is the ability to choose from more than one option, perhaps it would be possible, if any option fit within the loving God with all your heart catagory. It seems any other choice would be taken away, and so is there more than one way to love God with all of our heart? It seems that option would have to be making us sinless and more than that, never being able to think for ourselves. Being made in Gods image, where He makes choices, it would seem impossible to me that we would be with out.

 

Possible? I do suppose so, if you define free will as to follow like a robot, but having the ability to land your next foot with in a 12 foot region, as to have free choice but only as it is the choice to follow the best option you knew avalable, so I guess even that would not be much of a choice.

 

Could He of created us with the inability to sin? It does not seem to me if we concieve free choice as the inability to think for ourselves.

 

Thanks for readind and I will be looking forward to reading the next response but I guess in one sense, depending how one views free will, it would be possible but not if we were created to love God, as we cannot truly love witgout choice and further more not with being able to hold us accountable for anything at all and not much relation to the image of God.

[mcdaddy]

As long as you continue to treat Genesis as literal history, I'm out of this conversation. No offense.

[the stranger]

baa. I appreciate your dessert with extra sugar after so much humble pie and chicken bones. lol Whether I admit or not you have taught me some things I always try to remember. You are more than welcome to comment any time as perhaps it will keep me inline. lol

 

Mc Daaay, no offense taken, but I am a bible literest, because I belive if we start putting what is written down as fact as myth, than it quickly unravles right down to Jesus and salvation. For me my friend it would be giving me a reason to throw my faith away with nothing left to hold except my life experiences. So truth be my friend, That side of me wont be going anywhere soon but I am glad I met you and I will forward to any comment from you in the futer. Also, whether you respond or not, I still will attempt answering your questions with time. thanks

[mcdaddy]

It's just that we have to have some common ground. As EVERY BIT OF REALITY screams at me that genesis is a fairy tale, any discussion from your POV is just wasted time.

 

I'm sure you understand.

[centauri]

Hey guys. I love all of your great questions which I think I will have to look a little deeper to find out, but give me just a bit and I will get back to you all though I should start with earlier post. Let me respont to our friend Zalk first.

 

Hey Zalk, just some thoughts on free will.

It is intersesting that God created animals in such away I think. But than again, can animals truly choose or do they react only on instinct? Either way, they do not know right from wrong. Ofcourse, with this comes the inability to reason or to make eternal decisions though it is true each one has their own personality. The question is, do animals have what is defined as free will, the ability to make choices. If they run just on instinc, than we seem to have nothing to truly compare free will with. Unlike animals, we were made in Gods image and for the glory of God, just as animals were made for us.

 

Do the animals, or can the animals know God personaly? I guess alot is to be said upon knowing whether or not animals have free will.

Concerning other facters, for many Christians, we believe if God took the choice from us in the ability to love Him or rebell from Him, we would never truly know His love, grace, and justice as without sin, rebelling against God, God could never show us these attributes of Himself, thus in effect, questionably taking the true option of loving Him out the window.

If free will is only the ability to make choices, and God only gave us the option to love Him, as all other options would be sin, would we truly have ability to choose? If any thought against God is sin, and only thoughts of loving God thus was allowed, the onle free will would be what to do to love God more or to show without trying to be better how much you love God. This would be free will. This to me would be hard pressed to define as free will.

Also if Gods character is all good, could he, while keeping to His character, deprive us from making our own choices about Him? Would that not be a character not withstanding love? If sin is defined any rebellion toward God, than free will would be extremely limited if at all exestint. More so if He made us in His own image.

In saying that, if the only definition of free will is the ability to choose from more than one option, perhaps it would be possible, if any option fit within the loving God with all your heart catagory. It seems any other choice would be taken away, and so is there more than one way to love God with all of our heart? It seems that option would have to be making us sinless and more than that, never being able to think for ourselves. Being made in Gods image, where He makes choices, it would seem impossible to me that we would be with out.

 

Possible? I do suppose so, if you define free will as to follow like a robot, but having the ability to land your next foot with in a 12 foot region, as to have free choice but only as it is the choice to follow the best option you knew avalable, so I guess even that would not be much of a choice.

 

Could He of created us with the inability to sin? It does not seem to me if we concieve free choice as the inability to think for ourselves.

 

Thanks for readind and I will be looking forward to reading the next response but I guess in one sense, depending how one views free will, it would be possible but not if we were created to love God, as we cannot truly love witgout choice and further more not with being able to hold us accountable for anything at all and not much relation to the image of God.

The issue of "free will" is moot if God predestines people to certain outcomes, which the Bible says he does.

There is no way to know if an outcome was predestined or independently chosen.

The use of fear based ultimatums also renders the word "free" to be arbitrary and diluted.

If the Bible God gives that kind of "free" will, then so does every dictator on earth.

There's nothing special about God.

 

The Bible claims God's that works are perfect.

Humans are part of God's works.

If God's works are perfect, how does a perfect being make an imperfect choice and sin?

As soon as it does, it shows it wasn't made perfect to begin with.

The only way to reconcile that problem is to posit that sin is not imperfection.

[Guest Valk0010]

Hey guys. I love all of your great questions which I think I will have to look a little deeper to find out, but give me just a bit and I will get back to you all though I should start with earlier post. Let me respont to our friend Zalk first.

 

Hey Zalk, just some thoughts on free will.

It is intersesting that God created animals in such away I think. But than again, can animals truly choose or do they react only on instinct? Either way, they do not know right from wrong. Ofcourse, with this comes the inability to reason or to make eternal decisions though it is true each one has their own personality. The question is, do animals have what is defined as free will, the ability to make choices. If they run just on instinc, than we seem to have nothing to truly compare free will with. Unlike animals, we were made in Gods image and for the glory of God, just as animals were made for us.

You seem to be argueing against determinism. Also logic doesn't always require real life examples. That is just the difference between apriori and a posteriori. So what you say here doesn't apply to me. However in a technical sense yes we are animals. I am a compatablist in regards to biology and our choices personally. It may also be a difference in evolution. They are lower on the ladder so they run totally on instinct.

 

Do the animals, or can the animals know God personaly? I guess alot is to be said upon knowing whether or not animals have free will.

Concerning other facters, for many Christians, we believe if God took the choice from us in the ability to love Him or rebell from Him, we would never truly know His love, grace, and justice as without sin, rebelling against God, God could never show us these attributes of Himself, thus in effect, questionably taking the true option of loving Him out the window.

You really don't think too hard on your replies do you. I don't mean to be mean but you don't. A: Heaven with you believe in as we already discussed, has free will, and no disobedience and no evil. God wants us there. So logically he should have created us there. B: How benevolent is it, that a god creates a world with suffering just to make us appreciate good. That is a bit like a prison. You are kept in solitary confinement in some prisons as a way of being told to be good and to appreciate the situation you have so you don't want to bugger it up. Hey at least I am not in the hole. Its just morally absurd if there is a omnibenevolent god.

 

If free will is only the ability to make choices, and God only gave us the option to love Him, as all other options would be sin, would we truly have ability to choose?

See why i said its a extortion racket?

 

If any thought against God is sin, and only thoughts of loving God thus was allowed, the onle free will would be what to do to love God more or to show without trying to be better how much you love God. This would be free will. This to me would be hard pressed to define as free will.

Actually it can. If you don't think to do different option, you still have free will for the options your created to be allowed to entertain. So yes it may be that there will be times where you only have one option, but its different in extortion in that, your created that way, rather then forced to be that way. That is about the only way one could have free will in heaven that i can see. It may be very limited but its still logically valid. If fact technically you still have free will even if you only have say 5 options your entire life. Again its just a matter of one could design creation. It may not be pretty but you still have free will. Your making choices without outside force or compulsion, and that is the point.

 

But lets assume your right for a second.

 

All of this just throws any logic behind how heaven operates out the window and makes god seem really dumb. You did say there is free will right in heaven? Well you have seemed to realize its nonsense (to be truthful actually you make a decent case for it being absurd to have free will in heaven, I am surpised I haven't thought of it that way even if I don't agree). So what our other options. Compatibilitism would also be problematic in a christian world view becuase of what you just said. So your left with determinism and if your left with determinism then the whole exercise is pointless.

 

Also if Gods character is all good, could he, while keeping to His character, deprive us from making our own choices about Him? Would that not be a character not withstanding love? If sin is defined any rebellion toward God, than free will would be extremely limited if at all exestint. More so if He made us in His own image.

In saying that, if the only definition of free will is the ability to choose from more than one option, perhaps it would be possible, if any option fit within the loving God with all your heart catagory. It seems any other choice would be taken away, and so is there more than one way to love God with all of our heart? It seems that option would have to be making us sinless and more than that, never being able to think for ourselves. Being made in Gods image, where He makes choices, it would seem impossible to me that we would be with out.

You have a brain there after all. Again assuming your right, you have basically defeated your own defense of free will in favor of determinism. I am actually surpised your making a intelligent case against the christian god. He can't do free will in heaven, so why have free will on earth at all? And if he can only doing something akin to determinism the idea of christ is meaningless. Put two and two together and you see I am right.

 

Possible? I do suppose so, if you define free will as to follow like a robot, but having the ability to land your next foot with in a 12 foot region, as to have free choice but only as it is the choice to follow the best option you knew avalable, so I guess even that would not be much of a choice.

I only say its having the ability to choose. As far as I can see that is the agreed defintion of free will even by people who think it doesn't exist. The question of what can be chosen is irrelevant. If you have to ability to choose some things of existence you have free will as far as I can see. A limited selection set doesn't have any bearing on having the ability to select. Those are again two different things. I have been saying that all along. That is the only way you could really have free will in heaven. You seem to agree with me on what the definition means. Now follow it to its most logical conclusion. You seem to be halfway there.

 

Thanks for readind and I will be looking forward to reading the next response but I guess in one sense, depending how one views free will, it would be possible but not if we were created to love God, as we cannot truly love witgout choice and further more not with being able to hold us accountable for anything at all and not much relation to the image of God.

Well can you think of a better one then what I have established. Free will is simply the ability to select things. God has a realm supposedly of no evil. And you seem to believe that you still need a full selection criteria to have a actual ability to choose. You seem to have all the parts, now you just need to read the manuel.

[Akheia]

 

Mc Daaay, no offense taken, but I am a bible literest, because I belive if we start putting what is written down as fact as myth, than it quickly unravles right down to Jesus and salvation. For me my friend it would be giving me a reason to throw my faith away with nothing left to hold except my life experiences. So truth be my friend, That side of me wont be going anywhere soon but I am glad I met you and I will forward to any comment from you in the futer. Also, whether you respond or not, I still will attempt answering your questions with time. thanks

 

Oh, okay, that's the problem then. No wonder you think that you can decide what reality and facts are. You've been taught that by crazy men. They're terrified just like you are of the final, cold reality of the Old Testament's utter lack of historicity.

 

You should probably know by now that even the Jews that worshipped the storm-god Yahweh back in the old days (you know, when he had that whole pantheon of gods and a wife and kids, before he began edging all of them out and declaring he was the only god ever) didn't think the Old Testament was really describing real events. Even they knew better. It wasn't until the last century or two that evangelical Christians decided that it was all literally true. In doing this they were differentiating themselves from every other Christian sect that had ever existed. Think of it: millennia of men thinking about the Bible, working on its words, living it every single day in ascetics' huts and grand monasteries, and chances are that not a one of them really thought that there was a worldwide flood or a Garden of Eden with two people in it. And it didn't make a huge difference to them about whether or not their Savior had existed or not, because they felt that the truth was not dependent upon those myths being literally true. It bothered some of them that no contemporary 1st-century writers mentioned Jesus, but not enough to even question their faith, because their faith was built upon more than that.

 

Yours, however, was not.

 

Now, suddenly, the Bible's historicity does make a difference and the modern evangelical church HAS made the truth dependent upon those myths being true. I challenge you to consider why that might be. You have hitched your wagon to a falling star, my dear Stranger. A couple hundred years ago, we didn't have nearly the technology we do now to evaluate the Bible's claims. Now we do, and the simple truth is that only by running screaming from the nature of reality and facts can you maintain any sort of belief in the Bible's myths being real.

 

Your educators and church leaders deserve to be whipped for what they've done to stifle and pervert your intellect. But you have a choice now to educate yourself and move forward, or remain where you are and cringe away from the cold light of reality. Alas, there is no way that a truly educated and intellectually aware person can maintain a literalist attitude toward the Bible. The more we learn as a human race, the further we advance in the sciences, the smaller and smaller a corner evangelicals' deity must creep into until he is simply gone.

 

Me, I can't wait. The further we get from that storm-god-made-good and his terrifying brutality, the better everybody's going to be.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hey guys. I love all of your great questions which I think I will have to look a little deeper to find out, but give me just a bit and I will get back to you all though I should start with earlier post. Let me respont to our friend Zalk first.

 

Hey Zalk, just some thoughts on free will.

It is intersesting that God created animals in such away I think. But than again, can animals truly choose or do they react only on instinct? Either way, they do not know right from wrong. Ofcourse, with this comes the inability to reason or to make eternal decisions though it is true each one has their own personality. The question is, do animals have what is defined as free will, the ability to make choices. If they run just on instinc, than we seem to have nothing to truly compare free will with. Unlike animals, we were made in Gods image and for the glory of God, just as animals were made for us.

 

Do the animals, or can the animals know God personaly? I guess alot is to be said upon knowing whether or not animals have free will.

Concerning other facters, for many Christians, we believe if God took the choice from us in the ability to love Him or rebell from Him, we would never truly know His love, grace, and justice as without sin, rebelling against God, God could never show us these attributes of Himself, thus in effect, questionably taking the true option of loving Him out the window.

If free will is only the ability to make choices, and God only gave us the option to love Him, as all other options would be sin, would we truly have ability to choose? If any thought against God is sin, and only thoughts of loving God thus was allowed, the onle free will would be what to do to love God more or to show without trying to be better how much you love God. This would be free will. This to me would be hard pressed to define as free will.

Also if Gods character is all good, could he, while keeping to His character, deprive us from making our own choices about Him? Would that not be a character not withstanding love? If sin is defined any rebellion toward God, than free will would be extremely limited if at all exestint. More so if He made us in His own image.

In saying that, if the only definition of free will is the ability to choose from more than one option, perhaps it would be possible, if any option fit within the loving God with all your heart catagory. It seems any other choice would be taken away, and so is there more than one way to love God with all of our heart? It seems that option would have to be making us sinless and more than that, never being able to think for ourselves. Being made in Gods image, where He makes choices, it would seem impossible to me that we would be with out.

 

Possible? I do suppose so, if you define free will as to follow like a robot, but having the ability to land your next foot with in a 12 foot region, as to have free choice but only as it is the choice to follow the best option you knew avalable, so I guess even that would not be much of a choice.

 

Could He of created us with the inability to sin? It does not seem to me if we concieve free choice as the inability to think for ourselves.

 

Thanks for readind and I will be looking forward to reading the next response but I guess in one sense, depending how one views free will, it would be possible but not if we were created to love God, as we cannot truly love witgout choice and further more not with being able to hold us accountable for anything at all and not much relation to the image of God.

The issue of "free will" is moot if God predestines people to certain outcomes, which the Bible says he does.

There is no way to know if an outcome was predestined or independently chosen.

The use of fear based ultimatums also renders the word "free" to be arbitrary and diluted.

If the Bible God gives that kind of "free" will, then so does every dictator on earth.

There's nothing special about God.

 

The Bible claims God's that works are perfect.

Humans are part of God's works.

If God's works are perfect, how does a perfect being make an imperfect choice and sin?

As soon as it does, it shows it wasn't made perfect to begin with.

The only way to reconcile that problem is to posit that sin is not imperfection.

 

I always find myself in agreement with you, noble Centauri! I just thought of another sense in which classical protestant doctrine teaches that the human will is not free: everyone is born enslaved to sin and its impulses, so that the human will cannot choose to obey God. Then God gives grace to some people to enable them to choose him. I'm not sure about Luther, but Calvin held that God's saving grace is irresistible. So both sinners and saved make choices, which are determined beforehand by God. Luther went into this in his dispute with Erasmus; Luther's title, "De Servo Arbitrio," means literally "On the Enslaved Will." He was specifically opposing Erasmus' "De libero arbitrio," On Free Will.

[mcdaddy]

 

Mc Daaay, no offense taken, but I am a bible literest, because I belive if we start putting what is written down as fact as myth, than it quickly unravles right down to Jesus and salvation. For me my friend it would be giving me a reason to throw my faith away with nothing left to hold except my life experiences. So truth be my friend, That side of me wont be going anywhere soon but I am glad I met you and I will forward to any comment from you in the futer. Also, whether you respond or not, I still will attempt answering your questions with time. thanks

 

Oh, okay, that's the problem then. No wonder you think that you can decide what reality and facts are. You've been taught that by crazy men. They're terrified just like you are of the final, cold reality of the Old Testament's utter lack of historicity.

 

You should probably know by now that even the Jews that worshipped the storm-god Yahweh back in the old days (you know, when he had that whole pantheon of gods and a wife and kids, before he began edging all of them out and declaring he was the only god ever) didn't think the Old Testament was really describing real events. Even they knew better. It wasn't until the last century or two that evangelical Christians decided that it was all literally true. In doing this they were differentiating themselves from every other Christian sect that had ever existed. Think of it: millennia of men thinking about the Bible, working on its words, living it every single day in ascetics' huts and grand monasteries, and chances are that not a one of them really thought that there was a worldwide flood or a Garden of Eden with two people in it. And it didn't make a huge difference to them about whether or not their Savior had existed or not, because they felt that the truth was not dependent upon those myths being literally true. It bothered some of them that no contemporary 1st-century writers mentioned Jesus, but not enough to even question their faith, because their faith was built upon more than that.

 

Yours, however, was not.

 

Now, suddenly, the Bible's historicity does make a difference and the modern evangelical church HAS made the truth dependent upon those myths being true. I challenge you to consider why that might be. You have hitched your wagon to a falling star, my dear Stranger. A couple hundred years ago, we didn't have nearly the technology we do now to evaluate the Bible's claims. Now we do, and the simple truth is that only by running screaming from the nature of reality and facts can you maintain any sort of belief in the Bible's myths being real.

 

Your educators and church leaders deserve to be whipped for what they've done to stifle and pervert your intellect. But you have a choice now to educate yourself and move forward, or remain where you are and cringe away from the cold light of reality. Alas, there is no way that a truly educated and intellectually aware person can maintain a literalist attitude toward the Bible. The more we learn as a human race, the further we advance in the sciences, the smaller and smaller a corner evangelicals' deity must creep into until he is simply gone.

 

Me, I can't wait. The further we get from that storm-god-made-good and his terrifying brutality, the better everybody's going to be.

 

PRAIZE DA LAWWWWWD!!!!!

[♦ ficino ♦]

Mc Daaay, no offense taken, but I am a bible literest, because I belive if we start putting what is written down as fact as myth, than it quickly unravles right down to Jesus and salvation. For me my friend it would be giving me a reason to throw my faith away with nothing left to hold except my life experiences. So truth be my friend, That side of me wont be going anywhere soon but I am glad I met you and I will forward to any comment from you in the futer. Also, whether you respond or not, I still will attempt answering your questions with time. thanks

 

Oh, okay, that's the problem then. No wonder you think that you can decide what reality and facts are. You've been taught that by crazy men. They're terrified just like you are of the final, cold reality of the Old Testament's utter lack of historicity.

 

You should probably know by now that even the Jews that worshipped the storm-god Yahweh back in the old days (you know, when he had that whole pantheon of gods and a wife and kids, before he began edging all of them out and declaring he was the only god ever) didn't think the Old Testament was really describing real events. Even they knew better. It wasn't until the last century or two that evangelical Christians decided that it was all literally true. In doing this they were differentiating themselves from every other Christian sect that had ever existed. Think of it: millennia of men thinking about the Bible, working on its words, living it every single day in ascetics' huts and grand monasteries, and chances are that not a one of them really thought that there was a worldwide flood or a Garden of Eden with two people in it. And it didn't make a huge difference to them about whether or not their Savior had existed or not, because they felt that the truth was not dependent upon those myths being literally true. It bothered some of them that no contemporary 1st-century writers mentioned Jesus, but not enough to even question their faith, because their faith was built upon more than that.

 

Yours, however, was not.

 

Now, suddenly, the Bible's historicity does make a difference and the modern evangelical church HAS made the truth dependent upon those myths being true. I challenge you to consider why that might be. You have hitched your wagon to a falling star, my dear Stranger. A couple hundred years ago, we didn't have nearly the technology we do now to evaluate the Bible's claims. Now we do, and the simple truth is that only by running screaming from the nature of reality and facts can you maintain any sort of belief in the Bible's myths being real.

 

Your educators and church leaders deserve to be whipped for what they've done to stifle and pervert your intellect. But you have a choice now to educate yourself and move forward, or remain where you are and cringe away from the cold light of reality. Alas, there is no way that a truly educated and intellectually aware person can maintain a literalist attitude toward the Bible. The more we learn as a human race, the further we advance in the sciences, the smaller and smaller a corner evangelicals' deity must creep into until he is simply gone.

 

Me, I can't wait. The further we get from that storm-god-made-good and his terrifying brutality, the better everybody's going to be.

 

I always find myself in agreement with you, noble Akheia!

 

Stranger, she said it better than I was trying to say it, i.e. I think your words that I bolded above are actually an excellent account of the reasoning that fundamentalists in general bring to the Bible. You've had experiences, and you're drawing conclusions from assumptions about your experiences but in domains that your experiences have nothing to do with. Experience, though, is hardly ever brutally obvious. Like the person who looks through the mist and yells, there's a bear down the trail... and it turns out on closer inspection to be a tree stump. Your interpretation of your experience is, as I judge from what you've written, filtered through lenses that your church gives you. I join Akheia and others in suggesting you chuck those lenses and stride bravely forward to let the truth, as far as it can be established by us, to be the truth. Your experiences will fall in line.

[centauri]

centauri:

The issue of "free will" is moot if God predestines people to certain outcomes, which the Bible says he does.

There is no way to know if an outcome was predestined or independently chosen.

The use of fear based ultimatums also renders the word "free" to be arbitrary and diluted.

If the Bible God gives that kind of "free" will, then so does every dictator on earth.

There's nothing special about God.

 

The Bible claims God's that works are perfect.

Humans are part of God's works.

If God's works are perfect, how does a perfect being make an imperfect choice and sin?

As soon as it does, it shows it wasn't made perfect to begin with.

The only way to reconcile that problem is to posit that sin is not imperfection.

 

I always find myself in agreement with you, noble Centauri! I just thought of another sense in which classical protestant doctrine teaches that the human will is not free: everyone is born enslaved to sin and its impulses, so that the human will cannot choose to obey God. Then God gives grace to some people to enable them to choose him. I'm not sure about Luther, but Calvin held that God's saving grace is irresistible. So both sinners and saved make choices, which are determined beforehand by God. Luther went into this in his dispute with Erasmus; Luther's title, "De Servo Arbitrio," means literally "On the Enslaved Will." He was specifically opposing Erasmus' "De libero arbitrio," On Free Will.

In my opinion, scripture strongly supports Calvin's position.

To be saved by "grace" alone implies that you cannot do anything to save yourself through your own actions or works.

God's will takes over and saves you.

Eph 1:4,5 11 goes so far as to say that all things are done according to God's will and purpose.

At least some people are predestined to their belief in Jesus.

Even if it's assumed that such a claim about "all things" is in part hyperbole, it cannot be dismissed as meaningless drivel which gets overruled by magical "free will", which isn't even scripturally supported.

 

We've both seen this popular "free will" claim so many times on this forum from Christians that I have to wonder what Bible they read.

Verses supporting "free will" are ransacked by those that indicate God predestines at least some people and events according to his will and his purpose.

All it takes is just one instance of predestination to nullify claims about universal free will being given to people.

Yet, so many apologists dishonestly claim that God only foreknows outcomes, that he doesn't dictate them.

However, predestine means to determine in advance, not simply know in advance.

They just ignore the word predestine and eliminate any verses that validate it.

 

Most clerics I've dealt with hate predestination because it wrecks the image of God that they work so hard to cultivate and sell to people.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

Most clerics I've dealt with hate predestination because it wrecks the image of God that they work so hard to cultivate and sell to people.

That is because the whole enterprise then becomes nearly impossible to sell, to at least a modern audience. God created us with no free will, then why did the bible happen at all. There is no real good answer to that other then, god is god. Which is of course fallacious on several levels.

[Spectrox]

baa. I appreciate your dessert with extra sugar after so much humble pie and chicken bones. lol Whether I admit or not you have taught me some things I always try to remember. You are more than welcome to comment any time as perhaps it will keep me inline. lol

 

Mc Daaay, no offense taken, but I am a bible literest, because I belive if we start putting what is written down as fact as myth, than it quickly unravles right down to Jesus and salvation. For me my friend it would be giving me a reason to throw my faith away with nothing left to hold except my life experiences. So truth be my friend, That side of me wont be going anywhere soon but I am glad I met you and I will forward to any comment from you in the futer. Also, whether you respond or not, I still will attempt answering your questions with time. thanks

 

Just as well I don't take you literally or I might think you were a Lite Rest.

 

If you are a literalist, how old do you think the Earth is?

When did Adam and Eve chat with the talking snake?

Mark 16 states that a true believer can cast out demons and drink poison and live to tell the tale - have you done any of these things lately?

[the stranger]

To Zalk --

 

(A) Heaven has free will, but cannot tolorate sin, thus Satan and his angels were cast out. Also, because of free will, those in heaven are not obligated to perfection such would be with out the choice for wrong decisions. Rebellion cannot be tolorated, but flexuation in task probably is. Free will even in heaven does not exist with out the possibility to rebell. In saying that, I will Say, free will meaning any ability to choose, perhaps I will or must accept your point on this. Being that animals in this case also have free will under those same guidelines.

 

( What u say is true, but the plus side, unlike those who rebell in heaven, we can repent up until we die here on earth.

 

 

To Cents --

 

Does God predestine? Yes, in some reguards. He knows everything as well as causes everything to happen, or allows things to happen, but for what purpose? To bring us to Himself. Acts 17:26-27 as we were created good Ecc 7:29 and in John 3:19-21 it is said that we make the decision to separate ourselves from the light. Can you show me one passage that says God threw someone in hell though he wanted to serve Christ? Concerning the 2 choices I went quite long a few replies back reguarding that.

 

Gods work being perfect? There are different levels of perfection and holiness, just like professionals. All humans were created good, with no evil, but still able to disobey. Perfect does not mean the inability to choose.

 

You are right, direct sin is not imperfection, but rebellion. However, indirect sin, imperfection, was the result of direct sin.

 

to Akheia

 

thanks for responding. It is apparent you have done much study. I will join you in this study. I too will look deep into the orgins of the Hebrew God and Christianity. Even in the end we come to different takes, by looking at both sides for answeres I hope to walk away with A little more insight on your reasoning.

 

 

Ficino

 

Good points. true, born with sin we cannot come to God ourselves. Hoeever, Jesus says all are called but some are chosen. This seems to me to indicate everyone has plenty of oppertunity.

 

PS thanks for the insight on experiences. I know there is some truth to what you say. I am looking forward to deep research in the orgins of all of this.

 

to Spectrex --

 

in researching James 5:15 I have learned that healings, drinking poisens, ect is all done only when it is the will of God and not outside His will, and we know the will of God by being guided by His holy spirit.

 

 

thank you all for your replies. This next study should proof to be interesting.

 

 

Zalk, forgive me. I almost forgot abput your aesome last topic u laid out. I will hopefully get to that tomorrow. thanks. thats a good one

[Guest Valk0010]

To Zalk --

 

(A) Heaven has free will, but cannot tolorate sin, thus Satan and his angels were cast out. Also, because of free will, those in heaven are not obligated to perfection such would be with out the choice for wrong decisions. Rebellion cannot be tolorated, but flexuation in task probably is. Free will even in heaven does not exist with out the possibility to rebell. In saying that, I will Say, free will meaning any ability to choose, perhaps I will or must accept your point on this. Being that animals in this case also have free will under those same guidelines.

 

( What u say is true, but the plus side, unlike those who rebell in heaven, we can repent up until we die here on earth.

 

Then the whole exercise of Christ dying for our sins is moot because we have no guarantee of salvation and no guarantee of eternal life. Jesus didn't say believe onme and you have a opportunity to be saved, he said you would be saved. For everything I have ever learned about christianity, is that as soon as you became a christian and meant it, you were just passing time till you got there. And even with armenianism and that shit, if you were considered Christianity when you died you were okay forever. The only way, to have free will in heaven is do in which what I have pointed out as logically possible.

 

Now I think we have said all we can say on the subject, unless you want to have some theological proof to say that I am wrong for pointing out how that makes no sense.

[the stranger]

Only one thing to say my friend. the Christian doctrine on once saved always saved is not biblicak. The use of the word belief in the gospels are not defined as a one time belief, but a continuence of that belief and living according to such. Sometimes my friend our English translations fail us in understanding. Cits was pointing this out to me a while back. I think I see his point now more than ever before. Other than that buddy, as we defined the definition of free will and agreed, you got it. Hands down, your presistence paid off. Perhaps we still see things different but you made your case

[mcdaddy]

Smh

[Akheia]

I'm still learning Strangerese (that weird combination of "Christianese" and "refusal to use spellcheck"), but what the fuck is "biblicak"?

 

And it's hilarious that Stranger thinks he has the faintest idea what ANYTHING in his Bible says or means, or even that his Bible is anything like the inspired dictation much less the word of a living, breathing God. But hey, that's Christians for ya.... the ability to hold totally dichotomous and dissonant beliefs even in the face of complete and utter refutation is treasured, prized, and even cultivated by believers. I never saw that as clearly as I do now.

[Guest Valk0010]

Only one thing to say my friend. the Christian doctrine on once saved always saved is not biblicak. The use of the word belief in the gospels are not defined as a one time belief, but a continuence of that belief and living according to such. Sometimes my friend our English translations fail us in understanding. Cits was pointing this out to me a while back. I think I see his point now more than ever before. Other than that buddy, as we defined the definition of free will and agreed, you got it. Hands down, your presistence paid off. Perhaps we still see things different but you made your case

Well I think, even if you don't agree I make the case clear enough that anybody reading will get the point.

 

Ohh and, as I said, even if the once saved always saved isn't biblical, there is nothing in the bible that says once your in heaven you can get kicked out. The underlying assumption of all the new testament is once your there, your there to stay.

 

As well, you must admit, it does make christ's sacrifice pointless if that is the case!

 

Since we are talking eternal security I read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_security. The impression I get is, that the bit about loosing salvation, is only on earth.

[Guest Valk0010]

I'm still learning Strangerese (that weird combination of "Christianese" and "refusal to use spellcheck"), but what the fuck is "biblicak"?

 

And it's hilarious that Stranger thinks he has the faintest idea what ANYTHING in his Bible says or means, or even that his Bible is anything like the inspired dictation much less the word of a living, breathing God. But hey, that's Christians for ya.... the ability to hold totally dichotomous and dissonant beliefs even in the face of complete and utter refutation is treasured, prized, and even cultivated by believers. I never saw that as clearly as I do now.

He apparently types this all on a smart phone.

[Akheia]

Half of what I post is, too.

[Guest Valk0010]

Half of what I post is, too.

I am so bad at texting that I am not complaining.

[Akheia]

I'm the last person who can justifiably grammar-nazi anybody. I can usually ferret anything out with a little effort and I try to be understanding. This typo was just way beyond me for a long time. "Biblicak" -- sounds like something you clean off the carpet after the cat's gotten sick. Which is perfectly awesome as a slang term, but it didn't seem like it fit the context.

 

You know, I never once thought about what happened once everybody got INTO heaven. I figured once you were there, you never had to leave or could do anything that'd make you want to leave. God would just clean all the imperfections out of you--the bigotry, the selfishness, the dishonesty, the lustfulness, all of it--so you'd be perfect and incapable of sinning--in other words, of picking any course of action other than the "right" one.

 

This line of thinking led me down the dark paths of "so why the fuck doesn't he just do it NOW and save the rest of us the torture of hell?" Worse yet, it made me wonder why God had given us free will if all he was going to do was remove it after we died. And even worse still, it made me realize that free will only seems valid when both alternatives can be "right." If one alternative is "horribly wrong and evil," that's not really a valid choice, is it? I have free will indeed when I decide between cooking potatoes and grits for breakfast or making oatmeal with fresh peaches. But when free will means either do something God's way or do something that will send me to God's hell, I don't think "free will" means what the con artist preachers think it means. That's like a rapist telling me I can either smile during the rape or protest and get shot afterward. It's morally reprehensible that Christians present such a horrendous evil as "free will."

[Guest Valk0010]

I think, stranger has successfully proved how pointless christianity is. Yep you get saved but you can get kicked out of heaven. Smart one god.