Repenting After Death

[mymistake]

If I may ask, what does your path offer after death?

 

There is no 'after death.' Death is a natural conclusion.

 

You guys are missing an opportunity here. Christianity asks lovingly for 10% of income plus love gifts and love offerings. I can undercut that with a flat 5% of income. For a mere 5% or your income in life I will give you an afterlife beyond your wildest dreams. Christianity gives you forever in Paradise. I'll give you double forever in Tripledise. And you won't get a measly 72 virgins. You get 500 Orion slaves tailored to your personal preferences who will serve you for all eternity x2.

 

You can't get a better path than that. However our eternity promises come with a guarantee. Show us the afterlife promises from any other religion and we will double their reward. We will not be out rewarded. Act now. Sign up in the next 10 minutes and receive an afterlife mansion.

[Deva]

Ordinary Clay: I would help an honest, open minded person, but I have decided to let you do your own research into reincarnation in the early Christian church - whatever it really was that actually consisted of the "early Christian church." I spent years doing research into Church history and that was one of the main reasons that I AM NO LONGER CHRISTIAN. So good luck!

 

Anyway, even if it turns out there is no basis for believing early Christians had an idea that there was reincarnation, there is no way in hell I would ever believe that the Bible is the "word of god" like you do.

[OrdinaryClay]

OC, if it appears that Centauri is repeating himself, the fault lies not with him, but with your failure to properly address his points.

 

If person A continues in the belief that 2+2=5, what choice does person B have but to repeat themselves and keep on pointing out that 2+2 actually equals 4?

 

BAA.

 

Another possibility is he is repeating himself because he has no other response, and some people believe arguments can be won by volume.

[bdp]

If I may ask, what does your path offer after death?

 

 

and btw, your path can only claim to 'offer' life after death as well - you sure as fuck can't prove or guarantee it will ever happen.

[bdp]

 

 

Another possibility is he is repeating himself because he has no other response, and some people believe arguments can be won by volume.

 

arrogant cunt.

[OrdinaryClay]

This is true. It does not guarantee anyone will choose to love God. This is where Molinism comes into play. God possesses foreknowledge of all possible worlds (not just the world we ended up with). This foreknowledge is called middle knowledge. This knowledge is the knowledge of what every created being would have freely chosen to do given any set of circumstances (these are called counter factuals). Given this unfathomable amount of knowledge He is able to choose an optimal world to actualize. I believe he has chosen the world in which an optional number of free willed agents freely choose to love Him.

 

Think of it as God having a choice in which world He will choose to create. One of those worlds may have been a world in which no one loved Him freely. He choose not to actualize that one. He choose the optimal.

 

Foreknowledge of P really does not imply that P cannot be otherwise. Suppose someone wrote a deterministic piece of software, and they told someone else every possible outcome the software would produce. It is not the knowledge of the outcomes that is driving the results. It is the code itself that is driving the outcomes. The knowledge of what the outcome will be is distinct from the mechanism that drives the outcomes.

 

God's eternal and indestrcutable nature fall from the fact that He is by the defintion the fisrt cause. Really, the only thing indestrucable is an axiomatic first cause.

 

Your last paragraph already implies absolute predestination. If God is the first cause of every effect, then he is the first cause of Joe Schmoe's unbelief. If he is not the first cause of every effect (doesn't matter how involved the chain of secondary causes), then you're introducing some other principle of ultimate causality into the universe. That move will undermine the axiomatic first cause - it won't do the work it is supposed to do in the explanatory system in which it is a premise.

 

I see that Centauri has anticipated most of what I would have said to these other points about predestination, so I will stop only to observe that no calvinistic type claims that logical entailment is the same as efficient causality. The mechanism is irrelevant in the deductive system to which I referred earlier, i.e. if x knows that P will occur, it cannot be the case that P will not occur.

 

You are simply asserting that our choices are deterministic. You are assuming that which you are trying to demonstrate.

 

God is the first cause of the conditions for choice. He does not cause the choice. He knew omnisciently how you would choose given the circumstances He caused you to be in, but this is not the same as causing you to make that choice. You still could have chosen differently given the circumstances, it is just that God would have known before hand. As I said earlier the claim of entrapment is a legal excuse not a real one.

 

God is the efficient cause of our physical bodies and all matter around us. We are the efficient cause of our personal choices within the setting we find ourself. I realize now you are equivocating a bit within your deduction. The true implication is If G omnisciently knows how P will choose, then P will choose that way. It is not true that If G omnisciently knows how P will choose, then P had no choice.

[OrdinaryClay]

OC- just off the top of my head, I can think of only the titles of a few without looking at my library history. A history of God, the Evolution of God, the River of God, Jealous gods and chosen people, Discovering God, John Shelby Spong, Bart Ehrman, I could go on and on. I had serious questions in my early 20s but for about a decade only read apologetic type stuff, trying to calm my mind and reaffirm my beliefs. But eventually I hit a point where I wanted the truth no matter how ugly or unwelcome it was. I couldn't handle the contorted responses by apologists anymore. If " the faith" we're true, science would bear it out, as would the archaeological record. They didn't. God shouldn't need apologists.

 

Along with the fact I always knew, that OT bible god was nothing like NT bible god. And the horrible completely unjust barbaric concept of hell ( which is pagan in origin - not a "revelation") . Too many problems for xianity to overcome. It's a religion just like any other on earth. And truthsurge's videos really hit home too. The evidence against Christianity being literally true is overwhelming. I would have to be insane to believe anything that unrealistic and illogic anymore. It's like believing in Zeus. Bible stories aren't any more believable than Greek myth.

 

Thanks for the list!!

 

Have you studied any natural theology? What apologists did you read?

 

I see you are an atheist. Are you a materialist? Do you believe in any supernatural reality.

 

btw - I viewed a few of TruthSurges videos and to be honest they seemed shallow, juvenile or both.

[OrdinaryClay]

Matter is required for the notion of cold or heat to be expressed. Matter is created. So "before everything" is a meaningless concept from the standpoint of heat

Agree.

 

. In the same sense volition is required for either good or evil. Before creation there were no created beings who could express a lack of good and hence be evil.

Hence God is neither evil nor good. Calling God good is like calling vacuum tasty.

God is not created as He is by definition the,i.e. the axiomatic, first cause. So God existed before creation as good with no evil present.

[bdp]

Still ignoring me eh OC..? And still pulling nonsensical crap out of your ass...

 

you DID want to know why people don't believe - I told you why I don't. No answer? No questions? No patronizing babble?

[OrdinaryClay]

I left Christianity because of dishonest Christians like OrdinaryClay.

I consider his pretentious attitude to be more disturbing. But it's okay, I've grown used to asshats like him.

What exactly makes you think I'm pretentious?

[mymistake]

Still ignoring me eh OC..? And still pulling nonsensical crap out of your ass...

 

you DID want to know why people don't believe - I told you why I don't. No answer? No questions? No patronizing babble?

 

Surely you are not surprised. They all follow this path. They alter logic to suit their own fantasies. Then they forge ahead into their own fantasy world. Real arguments are of no use to them.

[OrdinaryClay]

OK, here's fly-by attempt #2:

 

Suppose that God foresees all possible decisions by all future creatures and creates a world that will actualize those decisions that he selects. He is the first cause. Or is he? Under the counterfactual argument, God is following the prospective decisions of his creatures, whose wills are autonomous from his, when he selects which possible world to create. God then is not the first formal cause of the universe; he is one participant among many. Your attempt to "blow bubbles of autonomy", as it were, for creatures within God's will postulates spheres to which God has to react. The resulting picture is not the picture of a sovereign god and hence, is unbiblical.

 

Suppose anyway that God creates the one universe out of many possibilities, which will maximize the number of foreseen decisions by creatures that he wants. Once he sets the mechanism in motion, the universe unfolds, determining by a chain of efficient causes all the decisions. At any moment, then, no creature can make a decision other than the decision that is determined by the chain. the creature's "free will" actually is only notional; at no point in created time can a decision "go either way."

 

In order to establish God as Creator he only need be the efficient cause of the universe. Please elaborate why you think "bubbles" of free will violate God's sovereignty. Then we can talk about why you think this is unbiblical.

 

The creature could make another choice. God is not the efficient cause of our choices, else it would not be choice. Just as a square can not be a circle so God can not force a free willed choice.

[Ouroboros]

God is not created as He is by definition the,i.e. the axiomatic, first cause. So God existed before creation as good with no evil present.

Since God is good (according to your religion), then good is not created either. And on top of that, since evil is not created and it's only the opposite of good, evil existed before creation. You can't have good without evil. Good is a useless term unless the relative exists. And like you said, evil wasn't created. It never had a cause. It's cause-less, just like your God. That's the end result of your definitions.

[bdp]

What exactly makes you think I'm pretentious?

 

 

Thank you so much for answering this so much better than any of us ever could.

[Ouroboros]

What exactly makes you think I'm pretentious?

Your excessive attempts to utilize superfluous vocabulary and your incessant exercise of grandiloquent discourse. The use of pretentious phraseology tends to signify a supercilious attitude. Ergo, pretentious.

[bdp]

 

 

In order to establish God as Creator

 

Establish 'god' first before you establish it AS anything.

[OrdinaryClay]

God is not created as He is by definition the,i.e. the axiomatic, first cause. So God existed before creation as good with no evil present.

Since God is good (according to your religion), then good is not created either. And on top of that, since evil is not created and it's only the opposite of good, evil existed before creation. You can't have good without evil. Good is a useless term unless the relative exists. And like you said, evil wasn't created. It never had a cause. It's cause-less, just like your God. That's the end result of your definitions.

God is good, so good was not created, agreed. Yes, good can exist without evil. Evil is volition against God's will. Before creation God did not go against His will so there was no evil.

 

To carry the analogy of heat a bit further, Heat is still a useful term without any notion of cold. Science measures heat not cold.

[OrdinaryClay]

What exactly makes you think I'm pretentious?

Your excessive attempts to utilize superfluous vocabulary and your incessant exercise of grandiloquent discourse. The use of pretentious phraseology tends to signify a supercilious attitude. Ergo, pretentious.

Can you show me a text where you think I was pretentious?

[mymistake]

Another possibility is he is repeating himself because he has no other response, and some people believe arguments can be won by volume.

 

arrogant cunt.

 

WTF! OrdinaryClay is simply ignoring arguments that prove he is wrong. And now he projects. OC is the one putting out volume. He can't defend a single idea he has offered. His only response is to assert or ignore.

 

This reinforces my belief that Christianity is mental masturbation.

[Ouroboros]

God is not created as He is by definition the,i.e. the axiomatic, first cause. So God existed before creation as good with no evil present.

Since God is good (according to your religion), then good is not created either. And on top of that, since evil is not created and it's only the opposite of good, evil existed before creation. You can't have good without evil. Good is a useless term unless the relative exists. And like you said, evil wasn't created. It never had a cause. It's cause-less, just like your God. That's the end result of your definitions.

God is good, so good was not created, agreed. Yes, good can exist without evil. Evil is volition against God's will. Before creation God did not go against His will so there was no evil.

 

To carry the analogy of heat a bit further, Heat is still a useful term without any notion of cold. Science measures heat not cold.

Heat is in relation to cold. You can't have cold or heat without the other. A universe only made out of heat doesn't have any heat because there's no no-heat (cold) to reference it against.

 

In other words, good can't exist without evil.

[bdp]

Science measures heat

 

but science can't measure 'god' - what does that tell you?

[Ouroboros]

This reinforces my belief that Christianity is mental masturbation.

Of course it is. So far, no proof, no evidence, no miracles. Just mental masturbation and word-diarrhea. The only thing Christianity can proudly boast about is that they managed to produce endless amounts of text without any God supporting them in real actions. All these gods are so quiet. They all want to be worshipped, adored, and believe in, but they never speak themselves, show themselves, or actually do something amazing to prove unbelievers wrong. They only prove themselves in the petty minds of those who already are deluded by the ideas. To believe, you have to believe first, or God can't show himself to you. Yeah. Right. Just like snake oil only heals headache and constipation if you really believe in it hard enough. Christianity is nothing but wishful thinking.

[OrdinaryClay]

God is not created as He is by definition the,i.e. the axiomatic, first cause. So God existed before creation as good with no evil present.

Since God is good (according to your religion), then good is not created either. And on top of that, since evil is not created and it's only the opposite of good, evil existed before creation. You can't have good without evil. Good is a useless term unless the relative exists. And like you said, evil wasn't created. It never had a cause. It's cause-less, just like your God. That's the end result of your definitions.

God is good, so good was not created, agreed. Yes, good can exist without evil. Evil is volition against God's will. Before creation God did not go against His will so there was no evil.

 

To carry the analogy of heat a bit further, Heat is still a useful term without any notion of cold. Science measures heat not cold.

Heat is in relation to cold. You can't have cold or heat without the other. A universe only made out of heat doesn't have any heat because there's no no-heat (cold) to reference it against.

 

In other words, good can't exist without evil.

 

You are making two mistakes: 1) if the universe were all at the same temperature you would have measurable heat with no cold, 2) the heat/cold analogy is simply an analogy used for conceptual purposes, you can not make a logical deduction form heat/cold to good/evil.

[♦ ficino ♦]

OK, here's fly-by attempt #2:

 

Suppose that God foresees all possible decisions by all future creatures and creates a world that will actualize those decisions that he selects. He is the first cause. Or is he? Under the counterfactual argument, God is following the prospective decisions of his creatures, whose wills are autonomous from his, when he selects which possible world to create. God then is not the first formal cause of the universe; he is one participant among many. Your attempt to "blow bubbles of autonomy", as it were, for creatures within God's will postulates spheres to which God has to react. The resulting picture is not the picture of a sovereign god and hence, is unbiblical.

 

Suppose anyway that God creates the one universe out of many possibilities, which will maximize the number of foreseen decisions by creatures that he wants. Once he sets the mechanism in motion, the universe unfolds, determining by a chain of efficient causes all the decisions. At any moment, then, no creature can make a decision other than the decision that is determined by the chain. the creature's "free will" actually is only notional; at no point in created time can a decision "go either way."

 

In order to establish God as Creator he only need be the efficient cause of the universe. Please elaborate why you think "bubbles" of free will violate God's sovereignty. Then we can talk about why you think this is unbiblical.

 

The creature could make another choice. God is not the efficient cause of our choices, else it would not be choice. Just as a square can not be a circle so God can not force a free willed choice.

 

Re bold: You are sounding like a deist. That's perfectly cool, in my book, but it doesn't square with orthodox Christianity.

 

Re italics: your thesis (or Molina's and Craig's) that God determines all the chains of causes entailed by the model among possible universes that he chooses to create entails that he is the first cause of every event in that universe. Free willed choices are events.

 

"free willed choice" is not a scriptural conception, as far as I know. The Bible talks about moral decisions and moral responsibility but I do not know of a place where the concept of free will is articulated. The concept that God causes everything, on the other hand, is articulated. You need to show that it is not a gratuitous assumption to posit free willed choices.

 

I agree that God cannot force a free willed choice. But "force" is a rhetorically laden term that disguises ambiguities. "cause" disguises fewer, I think, though there are more than one way to talk about causes.

 

It needs to be shown that foreknowledge of future decisions that are freely willed at the moment of the decision is possible. Levi ben Gerson and some other philosophers in the middle ages denied foreknowledge of human decisions to God for just this reason (one of my college professors translated him). The issue goes back to Aristotle's sea battle. On the other hand, reasoning rigorously about God's foreknowledge tends to lead to something like calvinism (I used a small "c" intentionally) because usually it is held that God knows contingencies in their causes. St. Thomas Aquinas is very strong on God's foreknowledge (uses imagery of man looking down at parts of road from a hill and knowing in advance that two travelers will meet, when they do not know they will meet), but he also was strong on predestination - I gather Molina contested the Thomistic view.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Your last paragraph already implies absolute predestination. If God is the first cause of every effect, then he is the first cause of Joe Schmoe's unbelief. If he is not the first cause of every effect (doesn't matter how involved the chain of secondary causes), then you're introducing some other principle of ultimate causality into the universe. That move will undermine the axiomatic first cause - it won't do the work it is supposed to do in the explanatory system in which it is a premise.

Hear, hear. I've been trying to argue exactly the same point for years. Glad to see someone else do it.

I know. Don't the closet Arminians drive you crazy?