Hit And Run Xtians

[LNC]

I agree with YoYo, as I lean towards the "no freewill" camp. I don't see how we could make totally "free" choices in anything. We have wills and choices, but we don't make them totally free from influences and experience, IMHO.

And I agree too.

 

We make choices based on past experience, and thoughts derived from those experiences. If I had the life of LNC, I most likely would be a stubborn Christian just like him. But if LNC had had my life, it is very plausible he wouldn't be Christian, but a de-convert just as me. It kind of touches on the subject of moral luck.

 

Too bad for LNC! Maybe he'll have better luck in the future.

 

I don't know what HanSolo's life is like, so I cannot be the judge of him and why he rejects God. Nor can he know what I would possibly do if I found myself in his situation. In fact, neither does he know what I have been through in my life that has brought me to where I am and what I believe. So, these kinds of conjectures are not real meaningful.

[Ouroboros]

That assumes that God's main interest is to get people to believe that he exists, which I believe is not his main interest.

Oh, really? So what is the condition for a man to go to Heaven then?

 

However, supposing that he stamped every person and every star and planet with his signature; I would imagine that there would be many people who would complain that God was imposing himself on us.

So why send people to Hell?

 

No, God has given sufficient evidence for a person to know that he exists and I don't imagine that Bertrand Russell was ever able to open his mouth to haughtily ask God why he didn't give him enough evidence.

Hah! I actually think he did.

 

It is not my job to give you what you need to believe in his existence either. If you have neglected or ignored the evidence that he has given you, what more could I give? It is much like the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man asked Abraham to send someone to his brothers to warn them and Abraham replied, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." Jesus rose from the dead, what more evidence is needed?

That's the thing, I'm not asking you for evidence. My last prayer was to whichever/whoever God out there to give themselves up and give me enough evidence for me to believe in them. It's a free-for-all. Whichever God heard it, had and still has a chance. It's an open battle between the gods, but they're silent.

 

There is a difference between sufficient evidence and the acceptance of that evidence. People deny scientific theories these days that are well grounded in evidence, not because the evidence is insufficient, but due to other reasons.

So you're saying that I somehow know that God exists, but deny it because I'm somehow evil? It's in my nature to deny what I supposedly know? Why would I do that?

 

Really, why should I not conclude that it is you who is prejudiced? On what basis do you conclude that Paul is religiously prejudiced?

Because he judges me, and so do you, without knowing me. And you and he judges me on assumptions that in my opinion are WRONG. That is prejudice. I can't be prejudice about your opinion about me, can I? It's your and Paul's opinion about me that is wrong, but you refuse to see it or admit to it, because you are prejudiced.

 

Now, you claim knowledge of me based upon these brief conversation? You claim knowledge beyond what a mere mortal could possess, do you have some supernatural source of knowledge? Or, can you give me the evidence on which you base such a lofty conclusion?

Well, DO YOU??? From all our conversations you have taken the approach of being the highty-mighty-holy-roller with the direct phone line to God with the almighty knowledge and total truth about everything you say. So do YOU have all that supernatural source of knowledge? I bet you think you do!

 

Again, God is not interested in you believing that he exists, he is interested in worshipers.

So if someone worships him, but don't believe in him, will they go to Heaven? Such a stupid idea! Don't you have to believe first to be able to worship? And why the hole-in-the-ground does God need or want worshipers? Is he THAT vain???

 

Whether you were ever a worshiper of God, I cannot say. And, I don't know how you define being a Christian either, so I cannot base anything on that statement. All I can say is that the evidence is not just sufficient for a person to believe in the existence of God, it is hard to ignore. Can it be ignored, sure, but it requires some creative thinking and explanations to do so.

You know, it was years of creative thinking and trying to explain things that got me to this point. As a Christian I wanted to always know more, and it got me here. To the point where I don't believe anymore. The reasons, arguments, science, evidence, all of it, led to dis-belief. So God doesn't not show himself in nature... or at least, to be correct, not YOUR God. Nature as God proves itself over and over again, while your tribal God does not.

[Ouroboros]

To know what will happen and to cause it to happen are two different things. Nobody going to hell is going there involuntarily.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that buddy.

 

Nobody in hell would even want to be in heaven as that would mean that they would have to be in the constant presence of God, whom they hate.

Nature is God. I don't hate nature. And I don't hate your God, because he doesn't exist. So no, I don't hate God in any sense or fashion. But you hate people who doesn't follow your particular brand of religion. You're exclusive and hateful to other people, because they don't believe YOU.

 

This is no game to God. He sent his son to die at the hands of his own creation in order to pay for the rebellion of his own creation against him. Rebellion that is completely unjustified and deserving of the most severe punishment. The fact that God saves any of us is due to his patience, long suffering, mercy, kindness, and grace.

Sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic.

 

No, it is we who are sick and sinful. To rebel against a God who has offered us nothing but good is a very sick response indeed!

So you're sick then too? You rebelled too? In what sense? What did you do? You tried to kill God? What did you do to deserve God's wrath?

 

Your God is based on an old book. My God, the Nature, is based on reality and the book of real life, right here, right now. You're the one who hates the real God, and because of it, you're creating your own hell, here on Earth and drag other people with you. Misery loves company.

[LNC]

Which command? The one where you are commanded to stone your unruly child, or the one where you are commanded to sell everything you own and give to the poor? Oh, yeah, now I remember, those are not God's commands to you, but only to someone else. While the command, "Trust LNC because he is the Holy Truth Holder from God," must be ringing in our ears from God's throne. Mysterious how God always end up on your side, regardless of which belief you currently hold.

 

You are right, these commands were not given to me. In fact, there is no commandment for stoning unruly children. I think you are confusing that with the command about those who curse their father or mother (and they were children in the sense of being what we would consider minors, they were adult offspring). It is easy to recast these commands to make it look like little children were somehow being stoned for insolence, but that shows a lack of understanding of the text. It is not surprising however, as this is common practice on the atheist apologetic websites. Second, the story to which you refer about selling everything I have answered before. Jesus is speaking to the rich young ruler, not giving a general command. That is very obvious when you read the story (try Luke 18:18-30 or Mark 10:17-30). Yet, I find that the people that make this accusation aren't really familiar with the accounts, they just pull this off the atheist websites.

 

Now, if you disagree with me, maybe you can explain your hermeneutic that led you to draw this conclusion. I will be interested in hearing your justification of such a conclusion. It is not God who ends up on my side, it is I who try to stay by his side.

[Ouroboros]

I don't know what HanSolo's life is like, so I cannot be the judge of him and why he rejects God.

And yet you do, and yet you do. You judge me by saying that I reject God. You're claiming to know (somehow magically) that I somehow know there is a God, but I reject that God. And that is, excuse my rude french, is BULL-SHIT!

 

I don't know if your God exists or not. So far, what I have seen, heard, read, studied, etc, only shows that your particular God does NOT exist. Everything points away from your God, not towards.

 

So my reason to rejecting your God has nothing to do with me believing he exists and me rebelling, but rather: I don't believe he exists!!! I think it's all baloney. I think it's children's tales. I think it's fairy tales. I believe you have been had by a 2,000 prank! I think you are deluding yourself and dragging other people down with you! I think it's all just the same as Harry Potter.

 

So DO NOT judge me by saying that I do know but reject God knowingly or in rebellion. Because that IS JUDGING!

 

Nor can he know what I would possibly do if I found myself in his situation. In fact, neither does he know what I have been through in my life that has brought me to where I am and what I believe. So, these kinds of conjectures are not real meaningful.

I believe you really believe what you believe. I don't question if you honestly believe or not, but recently, you have questioned my honesty in my belief. By making false assertions about me, you are in FACT judging.

[Looking4Answers]

a person doesn't go to hell for disagreeing with the Bible

 

It is much like the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man asked Abraham to send someone to his brothers to warn them and Abraham replied, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." Jesus rose from the dead, what more evidence is needed?

 

It looks like the brothers of the rich man were going to go to hell because they disagreed with the Bible. They had Moses and the Prophets (the Bible) and apparently refused to listen to what was written therein (disagreed via not believing). The end result (according to Jesus' teaching): hell. So, yes, people go to hell because they disagree with the Bible (according to the Bible, that is).

 

For example, the Bible states that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and that no man can come to the father (god) but by him. I disagree with this statement because I simply do not believe it to be true. So, based on what the Bible says about Jesus, I disagree with its teachings. As a result, the Bible would say I am on the road to hell.

 

The fact of the matter is, you can say that it is man's rebellion against god that sends a man to hell, but the only way for a man to know what the Christian god demands is to get that information from the Bible. So disagreeing with the Bible is considered the same as disagreeing with god. Therefore, you are incorrect when you say that no one goes to hell for disagreeing with the Bible. According to Christian doctrine, the Bible is the only true source for who and what god is. To reject that source is to reject god himself.

 

No, God has given sufficient evidence for a person to know that he exists

 

No, he has not. Not in any way, shape or form. Frankly, if you think about it, virtually every single person on this forum is a person that, at one point in their life, desperately wanted to be a part of god's plan and to dedicate their lives to him. These people, myself included, sought god with all our hearts, dedicated ourselves to him, prayed, studied and looked to shore up our faith by further attempting to see god in everything all around us. Yet, despite this, the more we looked the more we found that god simply was not there.

 

Even after leaving the faith there are many here that would be willing to willingly bow the knee to a god should the evidence show that such a god exists. However, such evidence is not there. To say that god has given sufficient evidence is simply not the case.

 

One thing I have noticed in your posts (at least here in this thread), LNC, is that you state things as fact without any facts to back them up. What you are really doing is stating what you think instead of what is. While it is OK to have thoughts and beliefs, it is not OK to state them as emphatic facts if there is no evidence for such.

 

It is not my job to give you what you need to believe in his existence either.

 

According to the Bible it is (from a human perspective). You are to have an ready answer for every man. The Bible says that no one can believe unless they hear and that this hearing comes from the one that preaches and, as a result, you are to have an answer and to proclaim to all who are "lost." Since the Bible declares that none can get saved apart from hearing the Gospel, then the hearing of the Gospel is a requirement for salvation. Since no one can hear unless one declares it, then it is necessary for the Gospel to be declared. Therefore, it is indeed the believer's job to give the unbeliever what they need in order to be saved.

 

Yes, I realize that you are coming from the perspective that it is god that ultimately saves (according to the Bible ... salvation is of the lord and all that), but the god of the Bible has declared that this is worked, not just through the drawing of his spirit, but via the foolishness of the proclamation of the Gospel. So, again, without the human proclamation of faith lost man cannot get saved (according to the Bible).

[Ouroboros]

You are right, these commands were not given to me. In fact, there is no commandment for stoning unruly children. I think you are confusing that with the command about those who curse their father or mother (and they were children in the sense of being what we would consider minors, they were adult offspring). It is easy to recast these commands to make it look like little children were somehow being stoned for insolence, but that shows a lack of understanding of the text. It is not surprising however, as this is common practice on the atheist apologetic websites. Second, the story to which you refer about selling everything I have answered before. Jesus is speaking to the rich young ruler, not giving a general command. That is very obvious when you read the story (try Luke 18:18-30 or Mark 10:17-30). Yet, I find that the people that make this accusation aren't really familiar with the accounts, they just pull this off the atheist websites.

You are just interpreting the Book. That's personal opinions.

 

You pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible. There's not system in which verse you pick as yours and which one you exclude. Other verses you will gladly pick, even if they were addressed to Jews, or to the disciples, or to a certain church.

 

Over and over again, you prove my point. But only you can't see it. Everyone who is reading this understands how full of bull-shit you are.

 

Now, if you disagree with me, maybe you can explain your hermeneutic that led you to draw this conclusion. I will be interested in hearing your justification of such a conclusion. It is not God who ends up on my side, it is I who try to stay by his side.

The 10 commandments. They were written to the Jews.

 

Did Paul every tell you that it was for the Christians? Did Jesus ever tell you they were for the heathens or non-Jews?

 

You are a cherry-picker. Either the verses are in the Bible and for everyone, or not. If they're not, then you have a hard time proving that any verse is for anyone.

 

Does the golden rule apply to you? Who was Jesus talking to when he said it? Was it you? If not, then you can't claim it to be to you.

 

To tell you the truth, you are a self-centered prick, and you don't worship God, but you worship yourself and think you're the greatest ever made. And you can pat yourself on the shoulder now, because from all our conversations there's one thing that has come out of it, and that is that I find your religion even more despicable and distasteful than ever. You are just hammering the nails harder in the coffin. So when you go to Heaven, please tell God how good of soldier you were and made people despise God through your loquacious insanities. You have slain their spirits and doomed them to Hell, because you present your religion and your God in a very, very bad light.

[LNC]

Actually, Jesus called it a whale

 

Matt 12:40

40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

(KJV)

 

.....moving on....1) God spoke to Jonah 2) Jonah didn't obey God 3) God caused a storm to make the people in the boat to wonder what they did to

 

God, ....Jonah told them it was his fault 4) Jonah got swallowed by a whale that God 'prepared for him'.

 

Jonah 1:17

17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

(KJV)

 

5) Jonah prayed to God in the whale 6) God cause the whale to 'vomit' him up, .....in Nineveh 7)Jonah did what God told him to do originally.

 

Jonah didn't have a choice Biblically, God caused chaos, and almost terminated his life to do what He said to do. That's not freewill, or letting us make our own choices.

 

Now, you see, that is the problem of relying on an English translation, especially the KJV. It is not the best translation of the Greek or Hebrew. The term used in the original languages (both Greek and Hebrew) is that of "great fish" which is more accurately translated in the NASB, NIV, ESV, and just about every other modern translation. The KJV translators made a mistake in this one.

 

It specifically says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that, He(God) could show them signs.

 

Exod 7:3

3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

(KJV)

 

God gave Pharaoh warnings and Pharaoh changed his mind in light of the warnings to allow the Jews to go free. Pharaoh then changed his mind. Do I know exactly how God did this? No. But did it involve Pharaoh still being able to make a choice and being culpable for that choice? Yes.

[Looking4Answers]

LNC, you are showing more and more that you do not know what you are talking about. You said the following:

 

In fact, there is no commandment for stoning unruly children.

 

Try this section of the Bible:

 

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and [that], when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son [is] stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; [he is] a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

[Ouroboros]

You see? You're even arguing with other Christians!!! But... all of you should have the truth? No? So which church should I go to, Yoyo's or yours? Which one of you is telling the ultimate, absolute, undeniable truth? I vote for neither. I have to follow my heart and my mind, because your mind is most definitely extremely screwed up.

 

Know this. Just know one thing from our discussion here, I respect Yoyo 100 times more than I respect you. So if anyone ever have a chance to talk to me about religion in a sane way, it's him. So remember that when you want to put another gold star on your "proselytizing" score-card. You're just as bad as the Westboro Baptists. Complete nutcases driving people away from faith. They're trying to hard to be correct that the fail in winning people over.

[Abiyoyo]

 

Now, you see, that is the problem of relying on an English translation, especially the KJV. It is not the best translation of the Greek or Hebrew. The term used in the original languages (both Greek and Hebrew) is that of "great fish" which is more accurately translated in the NASB, NIV, ESV, and just about every other modern translation. The KJV translators made a mistake in this one.

 

It really doesn't matter if it was a whale or a huge fish. God told it to eat Jonah.

 

It specifically says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that, He(God) could show them signs.

 

Exod 7:3

3 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

(KJV)

 

God gave Pharaoh warnings and Pharaoh changed his mind in light of the warnings to allow the Jews to go free. Pharaoh then changed his mind. Do I know exactly how God did this? No. But did it involve Pharaoh still being able to make a choice and being culpable for that choice? Yes.

 

Don't deny the obvious.

[LNC]

But see, you are doing it again. You are referring to man's ideas/concepts about god. These ideas may find some form or fashion within the Bible or they may not. However, they simply seem like excuses for when someone wants to contend with a Christian about how god functions in the affairs of men. But it all comes out (to me) as a bunch of jargon that does nothing more than obscure the discussion (in my opinion).

 

How do you know that these are just man's ideas/concepts about God unless you have some superior knowledge of God that would indicate this?

 

Really? If a man is born in some unexplored jungle, lives his life and dies having never heard about the god of the Bible, then he will go to hell. He had no choice in this matter. Yet the Bible is clear that NO MAN comes to the father (god) but by me (Jesus).

 

Have you ever watched any of the Saw movies? They are horror films, so I kind of doubt it. However, there are some interesting concepts in these films. Jigsaw, the "villain" of the film, puts people in situations where they have to make moral decisions that no one in their right mind would want to make. For example, he might have two people chained to opposite ends of the room. One person is given a bullet and a gun is within reach. The other person does not have the same option. A tape recorder is there and, when played, the tape explains that the first person (the one with the gun) will be set free if he kills the other person. It is also explained that if he does not kill the other man then someone will kill the first man's wife and child. Because of the set up, no other option is given. It is either kill the other man or allow your family to be murdered. Then Jigsaw sets a time table in which the decision needs to be made.

 

Is this really free choice? Sure, the first man can choose to not kill the other man, but his family will be murdered. Or he can become a murderer himself. This is not really a choice. In fact, it is the illusion of choice.

 

It seems to me that the choice between heaven or hell is similar. It is really not a choice. It is a threat from the Jigsaw in the sky. Either we, as a people, bow down to the murderous god who is guilty of more bloodshed then all other killers and wars combined or we condemn our own selves to an eternity of pain. This is not a choice. It is self preservation, which limits free will in every way. If my house is on fire, I could exercise my free will to sit back and watch TV, but that would be quite foolish. So my freedom of choice is so restricted (in this case) as to have no choice but to flee.

 

God may not "force" anyone into either heaven or hell but, like Jigsaw, who never technically murdered anyone, he forces the choice upon people in such a way that free choice is really not an option. Thus, free will becomes and illusion. As does the idea that god does not force anyone into either place.

 

I have heard many stories of people living in remote areas with no Christian influence coming to trust in Jesus through dreams and visions. Abraham was just such a person who lived in a remote pagan culture and to whom God spoke directly.

 

Regarding the Saw movies, you are right, I have never seen them. However, in such a scenario the person still has the freedom to choose, albeit a difficult situation. He doesn't really have any assurances that should he choose to shoot the other person that someone so despicable to create such a scenario won't still kill him and his family. So, if he chooses to murder, he is still guilty of murder. If he chooses not to murder and his family is murdered, he is not guilty of murder. There is coercion, but no force in this situation - that is the dilemma and moral play that is going on. If he was forced to murder, there would be no tension and no story.

 

God does not even put us into anything close to this situation. He is a good God who provides us life and good things and just asks us to trust him. We choose to rebel and deny him. He sends those to hell who willingly choose to go there as they would not want to spend eternity with someone that they hated on earth and will hate for eternity.

 

One does not need to have superior knowledge about god to claim that the Christians have erroneous claims. All one needs to do is examine the so-called Holy Book of Christianity to see its flaws. If one presupposes that the Bible is indeed the very word of god, then one only needs to read it contents. Yet, within its covers we find a god in contradiction, who claims to be all knowing, but is confused by some things, feels the need to ask questions and ultimately gets upset at what he has created because it just didn't turn out the way he expected it to. We find a god that claims to be all merciful and all loving that murders those whom he says he loves and threatens them with both violence in this life and eternal torment in the next. We find a being that claims to be all powerful, but finds himself to be powerless in many situations. We find a god that offers to men a choice and then, when it does not suit him, makes it impossible for that individual to make that choice.

 

Then we can also examine the teachings of the church or any denomination. We find that not only do Christians not agree with each other, but that most do not accept all of what is written within their own holy book.

 

No, it does not take superior knowledge to examine the claims made about the Christian god. It only takes a little common sense.

 

Yes, actually one does. Even if you proved that the Bible was filled with errors, which I don't believe it is or that you have shown, what does it prove? That the Bible would be filled with errors or contradictions. However, it doesn't necessarily prove that Christianity is untrue in its teachings. It does not necessarily prove that Jesus Christ was not God come in human flesh, that he did not die on the cross or rise again. However, you have asserted errors, but not given specifics, so your claim is not proved.

 

The same holds true for churches. Just because some churches claim to be Christian and deny the reliability and claims of the Bible doesn't prove anything about the claims of the Bible. If that were true we could chuck many of the great theories of science as there are scientists who deny them. Take the Big Bang theory for example. Sir Fred Hoyle denied it to the day of his death. So, should we throw it out? No, we just look at the claims and test them. The same with the claims about the Bible.

 

Who cares what the animal was that swallowed Jonah in the story. The Hebrews certainly had a very limited understanding of animal kinds (or at least classified them differently than we do today). They classified bats as birds and talk about the four footed winged creatures and the like. So perhaps the "fish" was a whale or a fish. It really does not matter.

 

But Jonah was not really given a choice. He was told to go to Nineveh. He did not want to go and plotted a course in a different direction. God took away that choice and ensured that Jonah got to Nineveh regardless. This is not "free will." This is limited choice. This is, again, like the Saw/Jigsaw example I talk about above.

 

There is no indication that Pharaoh made a free choice in the matter of the Israelite slaves. In fact, one part of the story shows that Pharaoh INTENDED to let the Israelites go, but god was not ready for that and so god hardened Pharaoh's heart, thus changing Pharaoh's mind. That is certainly not a free choice.

 

The problem is, especially in our modern age, that people living in free societies don't like the idea that someone would take away or restrict our choices. Therefore, if the Bible seems to indicate a god that does just that, then our modern attitudes rebel against it. This just shows us that the Christian religion's teachings, in many ways, are just a reaction to the current social climate we find ourselves in. Freedom is important to us today. Therefore, it must be important to god as well. However, the Bible seems to show a god that at least claims he is in absolute control of all things, including the very affairs of men (Daniel states this in his book). He supposedly even has the heart of the king in his hand and turns it as he pleases. The Bible even teaches that man's heart is wicked above all things and that we are deceived by it. So even our supposed free will choices are made in light of the deceived counsel we receive from our own selves.

 

While I don't believe the Bible is the word of god in any way, shape or form, I do believe that the book teaches that man is a slave and that no part of him is free (including his will). As a result, the choice of heaven or hell is an illusion (in the Bible) and the god of the Bible is just playing a game with people's lives.

 

Well, it was claimed that Jonah was swallowed by a whale and I want to be precise in showing that this is not what the Bible claims. Now, as for your claim about classifications of animals, I think you have been getting your information from bad atheist websites. The actual Hebrew indicates that bats were classified as winged creatures as a cursory check online would have indicated. However the atheist apologetic websites continue to perpetuate this false claim.

 

As for Pharaoh, he certainly did have free choice. After the first nine plagues he refused to let the Israelites go. In fact, after a few of them he promised to let them go and then changed his mind. After the 10th plague, he let them go and then chased after them. So, he did have a choice.

 

Now, as an atheist (which I assume you are) why are you even concerned about free choice as you cannot arrive at having free choice from your worldview? Naturalism can't get you to free choice any more than my computer can exercise free choice. So, I don't know why this is so troubling to you.

[LNC]

God gives a command and then it is up to us as to whether we will obey that command. So, there could be some confusion as to what free will is and what free choice is. Again, I subscribe to free agency, which allows for both man's choice and God's sovereignty to work together.

 

Give 3each, OT and NT references, that defines your view.

 

Adam & Eve - free choice as to whether to eat the fruit from the tree from which they were commanded not to eat, chose not to obey

Saul - commanded to kill the Amelekites, chose not to obey

Sampson - took the Nazarite vow and disobeyed

 

In the NT there are as specific commands given as in the OT, so it is more difficult to show this going on. We do see disobedience, but not to specific commands.

[LNC]

So, "god" would be known by man in heaven and the new earth, and he would not be god. If you would accept god as a mystery, I'd understand. But I know you don't. You have no knowledge of god; just subjective opinion from a book no different in knowledge than the koran.

 

Here is the problem with your definition. We can know God meaningfully (which I do) without knowing him exhaustively (which we never will even given eternity with him in heaven.) So, God has both mystery and has also revealed himself to man in a meaningful way. Again, you make a knowledge statement for which you have no possible knowledge. How do you know whether or not I have knowledge of God?

[Looking4Answers]

I have heard many stories of people living in remote areas with no Christian influence coming to trust in Jesus through dreams and visions.

 

So hearing the stories makes them true? But let's look at the concept presented here. You say that some can come to Jesus WITHOUT the Gospel being given to them via a "preacher" and/or the Bible. There are a few problems with this:

 

1 - If people can come to believe in Jesus via dreams and visions apart from a Bible or apart from a "preacher" then why doesn't god, who desires that NONE should perish and that ALL should come to repentance, do this for every single person? It does not seem fair or just that some people have to struggle and wrestle with faith while another gets a dream of vision.

 

2 - The Bible does not teach that, in the NT economy, that dreams and visions are the way that god leads people to himself. Instead, the Bible says that it is via the foolishness of preaching that god saves people (First Corinthians 1:21), not by dreams and visions. Paul carries this same theme in the book of Romans by stating that the unbeliever cannot believe in whom they have not heard and that they cannot hear without a preacher (Romans 10:14). There is no mention of god using dreams and visions to accomplish this task.

 

3 - If, because a man is cut off from others by living in a deep, dark jungle village somewhere, god can send a vision or a dream to convert the soul (despite the Bible saying this is not his chosen method) then Christians would really be messing things up by sending a missionary to that village. What would be more convincing? A vision or a dream directly from god? Or a man or woman walking into the village with a Bible under their arm? So the best thing for Christians to do is to stop sending missionaries so that god will send dreams and visions.

 

Again, you have relied upon what you have heard from men instead of what you claim to be the very word of god. The Bible says that the word must go forth and that people are to carry that word that unbelievers must hear and accept or reject that message. You say that god sometimes uses dreams and visions for this purpose, but the NT says this is not the way for it to be done.

 

The example of Abraham is not valid here. We don't have the whole story (i.e. we don't know how he came to faith). But, not only that, the times were different. Abraham did not have to place his faith in the name of Jesus because he had no cotton pickin' idea who Jesus was. Yet the NT says that there is salvation in no other name. So there is a difference between the OT and the NT. Perhaps men could come to faith in OT times via dreams and visions, but the NT says that in this day and age it is via the foolishness of preaching.

 

Therefore, according to the teachings of the NT, that man in the jungle, he is doomed. Unless god violates his own laws. And if he is willing to do this for the man in the jungle, what about the rest of us? And if he violates his own laws, then he is not just anyway and, as a result, is not who he supposedly declares himself to be (holy and just).

 

You can spin it all you want, but you keep getting it wrong.

[LNC]

God gives a command and then it is up to us as to whether we will obey that command.

 

LNC,

 

What is the greatest commandments.

 

 

Matt 22:37-40

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

(KJV)

 

There you have it LNC. That's all that Jesus summed everything up to be to the Jews.

Now, what did Jesus tell the disciples.

 

 

Matt 28:20

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

(KJV)

 

 

So, there you have it to the Jews, and Jewish followers of Christ. Now, the Gentiles (which is you and everyone else that isn't a Jew)

 

 

Acts 21:25

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

(KJV)

 

 

That's it! I wish it were that simple with Christians.

 

First we have HanSolo who wants all commandments to apply to all people, then we have you who wants to so narrowly define commands that the Great Commission could only apply to the disciples and the only command to the Gentiles comes from the Jerusalem Council. If that were the case, then why do we find Paul carrying out the Great Commission since Paul wasn't one of the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking? I really don't know for sure what you are getting at here.

[LNC]

I want to add to that last post this is why I contend with Paul. He, Paul, is the one that guided his early churches, ....by his own methods of what he thought the church should be. Hence, my aviator.

 

So, you contend that Paul had no direction from Jesus and none from the rest of the church leaders? That simply shows that you have not read or understood the Book of Acts. Paul worked consistently with the church leaders and checked himself to make sure that he was preaching the true gospel. Here is a passage from Galatians to consider.

 

For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of m

y former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

 

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, "He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they glorified God because of me. Gal. 1:12-24

[LNC]

It says both, as YoYo pointed out. It also calls a bat a bird. This all goes back to what i was saying in the other threads, the Bible is a product of its times and is filled with things that people believed back then, whales were fish and bats were birds, flat earth and solid sky dome, monsters, etc.

 

LNC how do you account for Esau is you believe that god gives people free will?

 

Wrong, you are getting your information from inaccurate sources. It says that a bat is a winged creature in the original language. Do some additional research (outside of atheist sites) and you will confirm this. There is no reference to the earth being flat - again false information, nor a solid sky dome. Regarding monsters, this just shows that there were large sea creatures and from science we know this to be the case. What about Esau would indicate that he didn't have free will?

[Looking4Answers]

Regarding the Saw movies, you are right, I have never seen them. However, in such a scenario the person still has the freedom to choose, albeit a difficult situation.

 

The situation in the Saw movies is NOT a free choice at all. It is an extremely limited choice ... a bound choice where no matter what the person does it is wrong and leads to disaster. This is not what is normally meant by "free choice."

 

There is coercion, but no force in this situation - that is the dilemma and moral play that is going on.

 

Coercion is force ... and a very powerful force indeed.

 

God does not even put us into anything close to this situation.

 

Then you have not read your Bible. The Bible stories show men and women in these types of situations all the time. Just as Jigsaw threatened the first man to kill the second man or else have his family murdered, god would tell Israel to slaughter a tribe of people or suffer divine retribution. Deuteronomy chapter 28 details how the people of Israel could be blessed or cursed based on their obedience to god. God threatens them with withholding rain, failing crops and cattle, disease, starvation, the enemy overrunning them and enslaving them ... how is this different? Serve me or I will kill you, god says. While it may not be with a gun directly in the hand of god, it is via disease, or an enemy empowered by god, etc. It is the same thing.

 

Today we hear the same messages. Repent or suffer the consequences! Christians may not want to openly admit that god acts like Jigsaw, but we see evidence that they believe it at some level. After all, when Katrina was hit and so many died, instead of tears, Christians rejoiced in god's supposed act of retribution against that supposed sin-laden town.

 

At one point in Judah's history (the southern kingdom once Israel was divided) the Bible records that god was determined to cause the people of Jerusalem to suffer because they did not heed him. How was he going to do that? By causing starvation and disease to run rampant among them. He even went so far as to state that mothers would eat their own children! Sounds like a nice god, huh?

 

God claims to be a father ... and a good and loving one. However, what father would demand absolute obedience from an imperfect son and then, when the son fails, strike him with horrible diseases and threaten him with an eternity of punishment.

 

No, god does not put people in the same situations as the fictitious Jigsaw character. The god of the Bible seems to by much worse by far. As you pointed out in another post, god commanded Saul, then the king of Israel, to totally obliterate an entire tribe of people ... genocide. When Saul fails by not killing the king or all the animals, god becomes angry for being disobeyed and removes Saul from the throne. How is this unlike Jigsaw? Jigsaw also commanded that someone should kill and threatened a punishment if disobeyed. God did the same with Saul. Except Jigsaw never went after entire tribes of people. God has and, if you believe the prophecies, he will do so in the future.

 

By comparison, the Christian god seems much worse than the devil himself. The devil temps, but god kills ... and he does so by the billions. The devil is reported to seek whom he may devour. But god just wipes out whomever he pleases and then condemns the vast majority to an eternity of hell as if thousands of years of bloodshed just are not enough for him.

 

The god of the Bible is simply a sick bastard! Sick! Sick! Sick! And those that believe in him are either delusional or sick psychos themselves.

[LNC]

First, why don't you go and bring some of those arguements from that closed thread into a new thread. Second, you quoted almost word for word on some of those sites and did not quote it or list the reference. All you had to do was put quotation marks on them or show a link. This is how someone gets to be called a 'cut and paster'.

 

Because, there is one of me and many of you, so I have a hard enough time keeping up with this thread. Second, if you have evidence that I quoted almost word for word please provide that. Shantou brought two examples, one of which I admitted using as a source, the other I had never seen before. However, he gave no evidence that I had pulled anything from the second source, nor could he since I had never seen it before, so it was a false claim. Again, nothing that either one of us is using for our information is original. You and YoYo got your bat/bird argument from an atheist apologetics website. How do I know? I have heard that argument before from atheists and know that you all use TalkOrigins and other sites as your references. If you don't believe me, check out the link to TalkOrigins that I embedded. Sure, we all research our favorite sites for information and when I need specific info like with the Gilgamesh reference (that argument also can also be seen here http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may01.html) I do research, just like all of you. However, this only happens in these specific cases. But the point is that you were refuted and then dropped the claims, just like you will with the bat/bird argument.

[Abiyoyo]

God gives a command and then it is up to us as to whether we will obey that command. So, there could be some confusion as to what free will is and what free choice is. Again, I subscribe to free agency, which allows for both man's choice and God's sovereignty to work together.

 

Give 3each, OT and NT references, that defines your view.

 

Adam & Eve - free choice as to whether to eat the fruit from the tree from which they were commanded not to eat, chose not to obey

Saul - commanded to kill the Amelekites, chose not to obey

Sampson - took the Nazarite vow and disobeyed

 

In the NT there are as specific commands given as in the OT, so it is more difficult to show this going on. We do see disobedience, but not to specific commands.

 

 

LNC,

 

Adam and Eve's result was they banned from Eden, man to toil the earth, and woman to have pain during child birth. That's called a punishment.

God took His anointing from Saul, causing him to go insane, consult a spiritualist, then he died.

Sampson lost his power, dying in a last call to God.

 

All punishments, consequences, aftermath by disobeying God. None of your examples display freewill, as they all had consequences to their choices.

 

The NT does not have God in the same character as the OT. Jesus is the main focus point, while his interactions with His followers were more representing His ministry.

 

If there is any part of the Bible involving the here and now people of the Bible being given freewill, it would have to be Jesus and His dealings with the people around Him.

[Looking4Answers]

Yes, actually one does. Even if you proved that the Bible was filled with errors, which I don't believe it is or that you have shown, what does it prove? That the Bible would be filled with errors or contradictions.

 

Actually, that proves everything because the Bible is the only source the Christian has for who and what god is. Apart from the Bible the Christian would not know to call on the name of Jesus, would not know that there is a hell, would not know that they needed salvation and that that salvation was purchased for them by god sending his son, etc. So if the Bible, the only source for "true" knowledge about the "one, true god" were to be found full of errors and contradictions, then it would show that the "one, true" source was not reliable. Any rationally thinking person would have to conclude that they, therefore, could not know for certain what the truth was about god if the book about god was so full of holes. So, no, a superior knowledge is not needed in the least.

 

However, you have asserted errors, but not given specifics, so your claim is not proved.

 

I have not because they are well documented. I have said the same about you (that you have made assertions without proofs) and yet you have not gone back and tried to provide any. You simply continue to spew your shit. The Bible has been proven (yes, proven) to be a book of contradictions and errors. If you struggle with that, then that is your problem, not mine.

 

Now, as for your claim about classifications of animals, I think you have been getting your information from bad atheist websites. The actual Hebrew indicates that bats were classified as winged creatures as a cursory check online would have indicated. However the atheist apologetic websites continue to perpetuate this false claim.

 

Let's look at a few verses:

 

“And these [are they which] ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they [are] an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.” (Le 11:13-19 AV)

 

Do you see the two words I highlighted? The "bat" is included in the list of "fowls" along with other known fowls such as the eagle, owl and pelican. Whatever the meaning of the Hebrew word for "fowl" it is clear that the bat is included among the feathered and winged creatures.

 

Just for fun, let's look at the verses that follow:

 

“All fowls that creep, going upon [all] four, [shall be] an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all [other] flying creeping things, which have four feet, [shall be] an abomination unto you.” (Le 11:20-23 AV)

 

Here we read about "fowls" that creep "on all fours." So here we have WINGED creatures that have FOUR feet. Among the list of such amazing animals we have ... are you ready for this ... locusts, beetles and grasshoppers. Uhm ... where did Moses take his math class? None of these animals have four feet. They all have MORE than four feet as well as wings to fly with. It really seems that the writer had some problems with kinds ... bats included with feathered creatures and four legged beetles and grasshoppers. Maybe the grasshoppers have evolved since then, having originally had four feet. Oh ... but most Christians don't believe in evolution ...

 

I suggest that you go out and start plucking the extra legs off the beetles, locusts and grasshoppers so that the Bible will be right (for a change).

 

Back on topic:

 

Here is another set of verse (even better than the previous set):

 

“[Of] all clean birds ye shall eat. But these [are they] of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, And every raven after his kind, And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.” (De 14:11-18 AV)

 

Do you see the two highlighted words? The first one, "bird," is the Hebrew word "tzippor." It means "bird." It is for those creatures that are not mammals but are winged, feathered and lay eggs. And, yes, I speak and read a bit of Hebrew. I also lived in Israel for a while. So the above passage is certainly speaking of BIRDS and not just winged animals. This list includes BATS as BIRDS.

 

Now, here is what Christian "scholars" will do. They cannot deny the meaning of the word "tzippor" so they will look at the one word that does not fit the list (bats) and put a note there. They will say, "uncertain." Yeah. Good job. The word means bat.

[Looking4Answers]

As for Pharaoh, he certainly did have free choice. After the first nine plagues he refused to let the Israelites go. In fact, after a few of them he promised to let them go and then changed his mind. After the 10th plague, he let them go and then chased after them. So, he did have a choice.

 

If you read the passages in question, you will find that in each case where Pharaoh had promised to let the Israelites go, god stepped in an hardened Pharaoh's heart. It was the hardening of Pharaoh's heart that caused Pharaoh to change his mind.

 

More importantly, we need to go back to the beginning of the story. After Moses meets god at the burning bush he is told to go and tell Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go. However, god made sure to tell Moses ahead of time that Pharaoh would not. Why? Because god would first harden his heart. Why? Because god desired to show himself mighty among the Egyptians. So god hardened Pharaoh's heart because it was a part of god's plan to show himself mighty in the midst of Egypt.

 

Pharaoh did not have a choice in the matter.

[Looking4Answers]

Sampson - took the Nazarite vow and disobeyed

 

No, Samson did not. Again, you show your ignorance of the Bible that you claim to be so true. The nazarite vow was THRUST on Sampson while he was still in the womb. The angel that met with Manoah and his wife said the following to Manoah's wife when he first met her:

 

But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean [thing]: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.- Judes 13:7

 

Samson had no choice. And when Samson did not do as per the vow that was thrust upon him (tried to exercise his supposed free will) he paid a heavy price for it ... eyes gouged out, enslaved and, ultimately, the loss of his life.

[Looking4Answers]

So, you contend that Paul had no direction from Jesus and none from the rest of the church leaders? That simply shows that you have not read or understood the Book of Acts. Paul worked consistently with the church leaders and checked himself to make sure that he was preaching the true gospel. Here is a passage from Galatians to consider.

 

But you are making an assumption that what is written in the book of Acts is true. When was the book of Acts written in relation to the actual events? Where did Luke get his information? Many theologians surmise that Luke, at some point, began to travel with Paul as one of his companions. This is drawn from a change in the text of the book of Acts where the use of the group term changes to "we" indicating that Luke was now a part of the group (as opposed to words like "they"). However, Luke, if he is even the actual writer of the book of Acts, had to have gotten the stories from somewhere. Possibly even Paul (assuming that he did indeed travel with him). So he hears these words from Paul. Does that make it true?

 

According to Paul's teachings in the Bible, he was privately tutored by Jesus himself at one point. It is rather interesting (to me, at least) that no one else saw this in order to validate what Paul says. Personally, I think that Paul was running into a bit of trouble with people accepting his radical teachings and, as a result, he had to validate them by claiming that Jesus himself taught Paul. This is really not a far stretch when we see that many movements have started by the same claim (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc).