How can a timeless and unchanging god appear to react and change when interacting with humans?

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, RankStranger said:

 

Ok, I understand a bit better where you're coming from.  You think that since this is a "debate" forum, it's within your rights to badger Christians to answer questions that they're not particularly interested in.  You've even referred to the forum rules as a justification for this.  You may even be right, per the 'rules and structure'- and I could not possibly care less if you are.

 

I'm here for discussion and debate, by MY rules.  You will not goad me into debating something that I'm not interested in.  I truly do not care what 'the rules' have to say about that.  I'd rather stick around as I've enjoyed the discussion here lately, but I won't lose a minute of sleep if the ban-hammer strikes because I refused to debate some point that doesn't interest me.

 

What is it about discussion on equal terms that you don't find agreeable?  Feel free to have The Professor lock this thread if that question makes you uncomfortable.

 

 

 

You seem to forget that Edgarcito is a fervent champion of free will, RS.

 

If he doesn't want to participate because he's not particularly interested he's free to say so.

 

But he hasn't said so.

 

 

 

In the interest of equality (your word) we should all abide by the same rules of debate.

 

But if you only abide by your terms, how is that equality?

 

 

[TABA]

23 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Authentic Christian Believers can't even 'like' posts, even in the Lion's Den.  There are plenty of times that I'd like to express agreement or support, often toward ExChristians.  I can't use that form of communication, because I'm not of the approved religious affiliation.

Personally, I have no problem allowing believers to Like posts, but I am not in a position to change that, I don’t set the rules.  Meanwhile, it’s not exactly a hardship to type “I agree” as a comment.  
 

Maybe I’m wrong here @RankStranger, but it almost seems like you object in principle to any distinction between Christian and Ex-Christian members.  This IS an Ex-Christian community: all moderators are and should be apostates.  That said, I think you have and will continue to have plenty of leeway to express your Christian views.  I’m sorry if that’s not enough.  

[RankStranger]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You seem to forget that Edgarcito is a fervent champion of free will, RS.

 

If he doesn't want to participate because he's not particularly interested he's free to say so.

 

But he hasn't said so.

 

 

 

In the interest of equality (your word) we should all abide by the same rules of debate.

 

But if you only abide by your terms, how is that equality?

 

 

 

I would love to debate you at some point- by MY rules.  Feel free to start any thread you like.  But it's going to have to be more interesting than this post if I'm going to bother.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

8 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

Ok, I understand a bit better where you're coming from.  You think that since this is a "debate" forum, it's within your rights to badger Christians to answer questions that they're not particularly interested in.  You've even referred to the forum rules as a justification for this.  You may even be right, per the 'rules and structure'- and I could not possibly care less if you are.

 

I'm here for discussion and debate, by MY rules.  You will not goad me into debating something that I'm not interested in.  I truly do not care what 'the rules' have to say about that.  I'd rather stick around as I've enjoyed the discussion here lately, but I won't lose a minute of sleep if the ban-hammer strikes because I refused to debate some point that doesn't interest me.

 

What is it about discussion on equal terms that you don't find agreeable?  Feel free to have The Professor lock this thread if that question makes you uncomfortable.

 

 

 I think your not getting the full picture when it comes to Ed specifically. He is notorious for deflecting, Segwaying, and flat out refusing continue an agreed upon discourse at times. It can be frustrating to say the least. So don't judge discussion with Ed the same as say a Discussion with AIK. I think the ones with AIK are more open and up to your standard like we would be with most other Christians. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, RankStranger said:

 

I would love to debate you at some point- by MY rules.  Feel free to start any thread you like.  But it's going to have to be more interesting than this post if I'm going to bother.

 

If it's a debate by YOUR rules, then how can it be equal?

 

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

9 minutes ago, TABA said:

Personally, I have no problem allowing believers to Like posts, but I am not in a position to change that, I don’t set the rules.  Meanwhile, it’s not exactly a hardship to type “I agree” as a comment.  
 

Maybe I’m wrong here @RankStranger, but it almost seems like you object in principle to any distinction between Christian and Ex-Christian members.  This IS an Ex-Christian community: all moderators are and should be apostates.  That said, I think you have and will continue to have plenty of leeway to express your Christian views.  I’m sorry if that’s not enough.  

 

I've made no such categorical objection, in fact I've acknowledged the necessity of such rules for "safe space" purposes.  So please address what I've actually said, not the jist of what you think I've said.

 

Again, ya'll can run things however you want.  Again there is a long history and good reasons for some of the restrictions on Christians.  Again, some of these restrictions (and I've been specific) are obviously unnecessary, counterproductive to discussion, and counterproductive to attracting new members of any sort.

 

In my opinion.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

I would love to debate you at some point- by MY rules.  Feel free to start any thread you like.  But it's going to have to be more interesting than this post if I'm going to bother.

There have been instances where both parties agreed on rules and debated. If yall want to debate, yall should do that. It shouldn't be "your" rules but a debate with agrees upon terms by both parties. I think it would be interesting to see a debate between a deconvert and a reconvert. According to what was being debated I would even be interested in participating if Walter didn't. 

 

Not today of course, its independence day. I won't be able to debate by days end I'm sure, lmao  

 

DB

 

 

[RankStranger]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

If it's a debate by YOUR rules, then how can it be equal?

 

 

 

 

 

Because you can debate by YOUR rules.  I have no interest in corralling you like you've tried to corral Ed.  I promise I won't point to some list of arbitrary rules in order to drag an answer out of you, when you're clearly not interested.

 

I am not here for a structured debate, enforced by the whims of whichever mod happens to be hovering over me.  I'm here for discussion, preferably with members who can't ban me on a whim for even having the discussion we've already had in this thread.

 

If structured debate is what you need and want, we have nothing to discuss right now.  If you can find a topic of mutual interest, I may give it a try.  But demanding per the rules that I answer some pedantic questions?  You're not going to get anywhere with that.

[RankStranger]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

There have been instances where both parties agreed on rules and debated. If yall want to debate, yall should do that. It shouldn't be "your" rules but a debate with agrees upon terms by both parties. I think it would be interesting to see a debate between a deconvert and a reconvert. According to what was being debated I would even be interested in participating if Walter didn't. 

 

Not today of course, its independence day. I won't be able to debate by days end I'm sure, lmao  

 

DB

 

 

 

To my mind, the Colosseum is the appropriate place for structured debate.  If I'm interested in that at some point, that's where I'll post.

 

To my mind (and in spite of whatever nitpicky rules some may point out), the Lion's Den is and should be more of a free-for-all.  A place where polite but spirited and pointed discussion can take place.  In this thread, I'm having a polite, spirited, pointed discussion on a topic that is explicitly forbidden (moderation). 

 

I'm Making the Lion's Den Great Again 

 

One thing that I truly loved about this site, all those years ago, is that ExChristians were willing and able to discuss and argue... anything.  ANYTHING.  As a young man I learned things on this site that I never would've encountered otherwise.  Things that literally changed the course of my life, in good ways.

 

That's long gone though, and IMO the reasons for that are fairly obvious.

[TABA]

@RankStranger, all I can say is, I hope you stay around and help make it better.  If that doesn’t work for you, it doesn’t work.  

[RankStranger]

2 minutes ago, TABA said:

@RankStranger, all I can say is, I hope you stay around and help make it better.  If that doesn’t work for you, it doesn’t work.  

 

Thanks Taba, that's my intent.  I'd 'like' your post if I could 

[walterpthefirst]

23 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

Because you can debate by YOUR rules. 

 

Let me bring you up to date, RS.

 

In another thread I apologized to Edgarcito because I mistakenly thought he did understand what was being referred to, but was dragging that thread out unnecessarily.  But I was wrong and he didn't.  I therefore offered to help him understand it, in a thread that I would create for him just for that purpose.

 

That is this thread.

 

If it seems to you like I'm corralling him then how am I supposed to help him understand the concepts?  He needs to tackle things in a set way, with me guiding and assisting him.  Such an arrangement cannot be one of equality, where the one instructing and the one following are equals.

 

If you want to call this tuition, then so be it. 

 

I am trying to teach Edgarcito to understand something new and as such I have to set the curriculum.  I understand the concepts and he does not.  The flow is necessarily from me to him.  It is not a democracy.  Pupils do not negotiate with their teachers as to how they should learn or what they learn.

 

He has a tongue in his head and he has free will.  So if he doesn't want to do this with me then he can just say so.

 

But as the person doing the tuition I can't just change the rules of logic to suit what Ed does or doesn't want to do.  Logic only works one way and doesn't yield to personal preference.  He and I can only proceed if he agrees to answer some questions - and I've already lightened his load considerably.  I'm bending over backwards here to accommodate him.

 

So, do you get it now?

 

I am not setting the rules for this debate because this thread isn't really a debate.  It's tuition.  A quite different thing.  If it should be moved to somewhere else more appropriate then that's ok by me.  But I can't and won't change the way the tuition proceeds because my hands are tied by the rules of logic.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[RankStranger]

Ok Walter.  Have fun with that, and God Bless you 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

You know what, @RankStranger?  Yes.  A lot of people left over the years.  You were one of them.  But a lot of other people--good people--stayed here.  A lot of good people did their best to keep this website going.  Because a lot of us remember what deconversion was like; and we wanted to make sure there was a place for others to come and get the help and support they needed.

 

Just who the hell do you think you are that you're going to come in here and piss all over the hard work and effort those people have put into building this community, which you abandoned all those years ago?  Do you think you're special for coming back now?  Do you think you're somehow entitled to something because you deconverted and then reconverted?  

 

You could have stayed here like the rest of us did.  You could have helped build and shape this community.  But you didn't.  So you don't get to bitch now that things aren't to your liking.  When a lot of other people made the commitment to stay with this project through thick and thin.  And I won't tolerate you demeaning or denigrating what they have achieved here.

 

Yes.  There are rules.  Those rules do not come from the moderators.  They come directly from the guy who owns this website and keeps it going largely from his own personal finances.  Every single one of the moderation team, and all of the regular members, are volunteers here; because we believe in the work this website does.  Who are you but some johnny-come-back-lately, who had better things to do over the past several years, than to reach out to the hurting and traumatized victims of the christian religion?

 

One of the rules of this website is that anybody who doesn't like it here can start their own website and run it however they want.  Again, that rule doesn't come from me; it comes directly from the top.  So you have your options. 

 

As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to stay now that you're back.  I have no intention or interest in banning you.  But we are done with your little pity party here.   If you would like to open a thread of your own to get more of your petty grievances off your chest, you're welcome to do so.  But this is Walt and Edgarcito's thread; and you are not going to take up any more of it with your bitching.  If you'd like to start your own thread and try to debate us according to your own arbitrary set of rules, have at it, by all means.  But not this thread.  This is Walt and Edgarcito's thread; and you will respect that. 

 

I will not discuss this issue with you publicly any further.  You are free to message me privately; or take your complaints directly to Dave.  Any more of this bullshit plastered all over somebody else's thread, though, will be promptly deleted.  Because this isn't the place for it.  You want to create a place for it?  Start your own thread.  

 

Is there an understanding between us, now, boy?

[RankStranger]

Thanks for the clarification.  I'll start my own thread and quote you for further discussion.

 

Boy 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I am trying to teach Edgarcito to understand something new and as such I have to set the curriculum.  I understand the concepts and he does not.  The flow is necessarily from me to him.  It is not a democracy.  Pupils do not negotiate with their teachers as to how they should learn or what they learn.

 

 

My opinions while things are being laid on the table.  Walter, this is not an authoritarian classroom like the statement above indicates,  You are treating Ed like a nit picking father trying to shame his child into believing like he does.  It is obvious that you feel superior.  That is not how to have an adult discussion.  And others do the same thing at times in the Lions Den.  It becomes a childish argument and ego battle rather than debate.  There is a lot of valuable knowledge in our group, but we shoot ourselves in the foot at times in the way we try to relay it to others. 

 

Rank, I agree this forum has changed, even in the relatively short time I have been here.  It seems to me it has been more of a chat room for regulars recently.  

[walterpthefirst]

8 minutes ago, Weezer said:

 

My opinions while things are being laid on the table.  Walter, this is not an authoritarian classroom like the statement above indicates,  You are treating Ed like a nit picking father trying to shame his child into believing like he does.  It is obvious that you feel superior.  That is not how to have an adult discussion.  And others do the same thing at times in the Lions Den.  It becomes a childish argument and ego battle rather than debate.  There is a lot of valuable knowledge in our group, but we shoot ourselves in the foot at times in the way we try to relay it to others. 

 

Rank, I agree this forum has changed, even in the relatively short time I have been here.  It seems to me it has been more of a chat room for regulars recently.  

 

Then what would you suggest, Weezer?

 

I'm open to options.

 

My main concern is that in the original thread I discovered that Edgarcito wasn't doing what I thought.  I was wrong and I prejudged him.  I also owned up to my mistake and apologized for it.  I wrongly thought that he understood that an eternal god couldn't possibly react to the actions of mortals within time and change his intentions towards them.  I wrongly thought that he understood and was just being unnecessarily awkward and dragging the thread out.

 

This thread was an attempt to remedy that by explaining the unchangeability of god through the process of applying logic to scripture.  It's a matter of record that I tried to get him engaged and involved in that process.  If I've gone about that in the wrong way then I'll happily try to do it in a better way.

 

What do you suggest?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

4 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

Most of this site is a safe-space.  There are parts of it that I can't even access with my Authentic Christian Believer status, and I can't freely post my opinions in most of it (which isn't exactly new, but the rationale has changed  ).  And that's fine- that's not at all what I'm whining about.  I'm whining about the Lion's Den specifically, where I've chosen to post now that I'm a Christian- out of respect for people on this site.  I've remained kind, respectful, and nuanced.  I'm not proselytizing even in this forum, and I'm not posting where I'm not welcome.

 

The Lion's Den is in fact a debate area, specifically for debating Christians.  That's right at the top of the page for this section of the forum.  The fact that ya'll explicitly refuse to debate on equal terms- even in this little walled garden with more mods than regular members- what does that say about the strength of your arguments?  I know that ExChrsitian arguments regarding biblical contradictions and Christian hypocrisy are in many cases rock solid.  And that's not at all where we disagree.

 

And Christians not being able to even 'like' posts?  Even in the Lion's Den?  That's comically petty.  In your shoes I'd find that a little embarrassing- even as an Atheist I thought the way The Lion's Den was run... was often idiotic.  Short-sighted.  Petty.  Counterproductive.

 

Almost 10 years ago (still firmly an Atheist) I pointed out Loren's thread in the Lion's Den (it was still pinned at that time, now long gone), and made almost exactly the same argument I've made in this thread (that maybe we should be kind to Christians where possible, because throwing feces at them simply isn't effective).  That let to some serious forum-drama:  Antlerman (who initially agreed with me) immediately banned Gandpa Harley for being mean to Christians- which is exactly what I asked him not to do.  Drama escalated until both of them left the forum permanently.  That was the beginning of the end of my time posting as an Atheist on this forum.

 

Before that incident, I really thought highly of Antlerman.  He's an extremely open and intelligent guy- I learned a lot from him.  And then a tiny amount of authority revealed his character.

 

Anyhow, feel free to defer to authority again if you like- if you don't want to debate ideas on their own merits.  You and Dave can run things however you want- I'm not questioning that.  But I can give my thoughts on the matter unless/until the ban-hammer shuts down what I consider to be an interesting discussion.  It's probably inevitable sooner or later.

 

 

Keith (Antlerman), was a sharp cat.  I still enjoy his perspective today.  Grandpa Harley....he had the vocabulary of five men, plus 2.  Good ole days.

[RankStranger]

10 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Keith (Antlerman), was a sharp cat.  I still enjoy his perspective today.  Grandpa Harley....he had the vocabulary of five men, plus 2.  Good ole days.

 

Yep, I miss both of them.  We didn't always agree, but they were real contributors to the site.  

[Edgarcito]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Yes, I wonder what this means too, TABA.

 

 

The Lion's Den is in fact a debate area, specifically for debating Christians.  That's right at the top of the page for this section of the forum.  The fact that ya'll explicitly refuse to debate on equal terms- even in this little walled garden with more mods than regular members- what does that say about the strength of your arguments?  I know that ExChrsitian arguments regarding biblical contradictions and Christian hypocrisy are in many cases rock solid.  And that's not at all where we disagree.

 

 

RankStranger, haven't you noticed the way I'm having to negotiate with Edgarcito every step of the way, because he won't take an equal part in this thread?

 

It almost looks as if he's trying everything in his power to avoid meeting me on equal terms.

 

To get me to do 100% of the work and for him to do nothing.

 

I created this thread specifically for him and he wants to do as little work in it as possible, whining (that's your terminology) that he doesn't want to answer any questions.

 

I've explained to him that if I grant his request to answer no questions that'll set a precedent that other Christians can use and exploit, so as to avoid difficult questions about their faith. 

 

I've also prepared notes about this subject and posted quite a lot on it so far, with more to come.  Would you be prepared to say that the quantity and quality of his input has matched mine?  Or is the ratio more like 95% me and 5% him?

 

So, there's no equality between Edgarcito and me in this thread and we certainly aren't debating on equal terms.

 

It is the Christian who is tipping the playing field in his favour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Walter, with due respect, you are on record admitting to utilizing your intellect to essentially abuse Christians using logic as your choice of weapon.  Not even too happy with yourself for that behavior that I recall.  One, you claimed to have something that I can't see, yet you won't just lay it out on the table for me to see.  Paraphrasing, you said you could show me how predestination and God still communicating on real time occurs.....that I was struggling to see that. Yet two, here you are wanting me to agree to things so you can catch me in some logic trap to demonstrate your logical prowess.  

 

I see it as less than genuine and disrespectful as well.  I have asked that you just put the explanation on the table as I'm really not so slow I can't comprehend.  Please just do that or let's just have John shut this attempt down....please and thank you.

[Edgarcito]

4 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I recall times i thought the ban hammer should of been dropped but never was. RNP has been very hesitant to use the ban hammer in my experience. And that is good. I was wrong in those situations and RNP was much more fair in his deliberations.

 

DB

We've cussed at each other so much, it's not even worth the effort anymore.  We are both trying, it's just difficult to navigate common ground when both are coming from extreme places of hurt I gather.  So yes. I agree.

[Edgarcito]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You seem to forget that Edgarcito is a fervent champion of free will, RS.

 

If he doesn't want to participate because he's not particularly interested he's free to say so.

 

But he hasn't said so.

 

 

 

In the interest of equality (your word) we should all abide by the same rules of debate.

 

But if you only abide by your terms, how is that equality?

 

 

No sir, I think reality speaks to free will and am waiting for you to match reality with your take on the Bible...

[walterpthefirst]

Very well.

 

Let it be recorded that I have been asked to lay out my thinking in full by Edgarcito and that I have agreed to do so.

 

From now on there is no requirement or expectation that Edgarcito contribute to the process in any way.

 

If he has any questions arising from what I lay out, I will gladly entertain them.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir, I think reality speaks to free will and am waiting for you to match reality with your take on the Bible...

 

Your observation is duly noted.

 

There are now no impediments to anyone's free will in this thread that I am aware of.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

To return to the process...

 

I posted a list of nine of god's abilities.

 

God is all powerful (omnipotent).

God is everywhere (omnipresent).

God is eternal, existing outside of time.  

God is all knowing.

God sees everything in creation.

God is the creator of everything.

God is complete within himself, needing nothing else to be himself.

God is infallible.

God has free will.

 

I also posted a list of five things that define his character.

 

God is perfect love.

God is perfect goodness.

God is perfect justice.

God is perfect wisdom.

God is perfectly moral.

 

In what follows I make no claim that it is the truth or that it represents things that humans actually know.  It is simply the application of logic and the rules of language to the standard Christian beliefs about god, as described by the bible.

 

Let us look at the first of god's listed abilities, his omnipotence.

 

Q.

Is there any way that god could be greater or lesser than omnipotent?

 

A.

No. If he were any less than omnipotent then scripture would be false and for the sake of this exercise I am taking scripture at face value and treating it as true.  If it says that he is omnipotent, then he is not less than that.  

 

Logically, he cannot be greater than omnipotent.  There is no logical thing as a condition greater than omnipotence.  

 

Therefore, since god is also eternal, his omnipotence is an unchanging ability.  He cannot decrease or increase in his power.  He was, is and always will be all-powerful and omnipotent.  His omnipotence does not and cannot change.

 

 

Before I go ahead and ask the same question about his eight remaining abilities and the five things that define his character, are there any questions?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.