THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

[pantheory]

19 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

An interesting thought.  Similar to our discussions of free will yet still subject.  Truthfully had never given any thought to freedom without subjectivity.  Come join us after the sermon Non-grata. We are having a potluck lunch...lol.  I hear someone brought fried chicken.

 

Howdy Edgarcito, glad to see you're back, and you sound like you're doing well.

 

Would love to go to the lunch, but first I don't know where it is, and secondly I'm a vegetarian so you should have said someone brought beer , since I do drink beer and hard liquor from time to time y yo pagare para que quiero beber.  Y hablo espanol mas que un poco.

 

Pero, why don't you have a putluck lunch here in the Den about Freedom without Subjectivity, something like the wild west, and I'll try to keep the gladiators and lions from hurting you, something like Androclese pulling the thorn out,  OK? If you think not,  OK, just say so here to me, start such a thread, or PM me and maybe I'll start such a thread in the Colosseum as non-grata if you would prefer and would participate, my friend? 

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Howdy Edgarcito, glad to see you're back, and you sound like you're doing well.

 

Would love to go to the lunch, but first I don't know where it is, and secondly I'm a vegetarian so you should have said someone brought beer , since I do drink beer and hard liquor from time to time y yo pagare para que quiero beber.  Y hablo espanol mas que un poco.

 

Pero, why don't you have a putluck lunch here in the Den about Freedom without Subjectivity, something like the wild west, and I'll try to keep the gladiators and lions from hurting you, something like Androclese pulling the thorn out,  OK? If no just say so here to me, start such a thread, or PM me and maybe I'll start such a thread in the Colosseum as non-grata if you would prefer and would participate, my friend? 

I'll do it sir...thx.  Please give me a little time to consider.  Thx again!

[pantheory]

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'll do it sir...thx.  Please give me a little time to consider.  Thx again!

 

That's great Edgarcito. Bide your time as needed for consideration.

[Edgarcito]

@walterpthefirst doesn’t Jesus give us access to freedom here and now via fulfilling the law?  If the Spirit is within, then we become sons and heirs of freedom.  Thx.

[walterpthefirst]

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

@walterpthefirst doesn’t Jesus give us access to freedom here and now via fulfilling the law?  If the Spirit is within, then we become sons and heirs of freedom.  Thx.

 

Yes, that's right.

 

But until a person is born again of the holy spirit they are hopelessly imprisoned in disobedience and sin.

 

Imprisoned by god, according to his will, so that everyone is guilty and in need of god's mercy.

 

Which is given only through the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[Edgarcito]

15 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes, that's right.

 

But until a person is born again of the holy spirit they are hopelessly imprisoned in disobedience and sin.

 

Imprisoned by god, according to his will, so that everyone is guilty and in need of god's mercy.

 

Which is given only through the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

Thanks, how does that make Jesus evil if he restores our ability not to be bound to sin.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks, how does that make Jesus evil if he restores our ability not to be bound to sin.

 

You find that out by asking who bound us to sin in the first place, Edgarcito.

 

 

Romans 11 : 32

 

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

 

Then you ask yourself the question, "Is Jesus god?"

 

If your answer is Yes, then Jesus (who is god) bound everyone to become disobedient sinners.

 

And so Jesus is evil because he caused all of us to become disobedient sinners.

 

We did not sin of our own free will.

 

God caused us to become sinners.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

On 5/22/2024 at 3:02 AM, Edgarcito said:

@walterpthefirst doesn’t Jesus give us access to freedom here and now via fulfilling the law?  If the Spirit is within, then we become sons and heirs of freedom.  Thx.

 

Here are the verses that confirm what you say, Edgarcito.

 

Romans 8 : 18 - 21.

 

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 

19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

Jesus does indeed give access to the freedom you mention.

 

But nobody can have freedom unless they are already being held in some kind of bondage or imprisonment.  Just focusing on the freedom and glory that Jesus brings is just looking at half the story.  The twelve tribes of Israel were lead by Moses out of slavery and into the freedom of the Promised Land.  Later, the Israelites returned to the Promised Land after their captivity in Babylon.  In the NT Paul and Silas were miraculously freed from their chains when they were in prison.  As always, NOTHING really makes sense in the Bible unless you look it at it in its full context.  If there is freedom then that MUST have been preceded by bondage and imprisonment.

 

So, what is the full context of the freedom from sin and glory that Jesus brings to Christians?

 

The acknowledgement that they were once bound into a hopeless state of disobedience and sin, like everyone else.   And who did that binding?  Who bound and subjected all of creation to sin and decay?  According to Paul, Adam did the deed, but he was simply the one who pulled the trigger.

 

The one who loaded the gun and handed it to him is the one who is ultimately responsible.  

 

Can you please tell me who that person was, Edgarcito?

 

[Edgarcito]

On 5/23/2024 at 9:01 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

Here are the verses that confirm what you say, Edgarcito.

 

Romans 8 : 18 - 21.

 

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 

19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

Jesus does indeed give access to the freedom you mention.

 

But nobody can have freedom unless they are already being held in some kind of bondage or imprisonment.  Just focusing on the freedom and glory that Jesus brings is just looking at half the story.  The twelve tribes of Israel were lead by Moses out of slavery and into the freedom of the Promised Land.  Later, the Israelites returned to the Promised Land after their captivity in Babylon.  In the NT Paul and Silas were miraculously freed from their chains when they were in prison.  As always, NOTHING really makes sense in the Bible unless you look it at it in its full context.  If there is freedom then that MUST have been preceded by bondage and imprisonment.

 

So, what is the full context of the freedom from sin and glory that Jesus brings to Christians?

 

The acknowledgement that they were once bound into a hopeless state of disobedience and sin, like everyone else.   And who did that binding?  Who bound and subjected all of creation to sin and decay?  According to Paul, Adam did the deed, but he was simply the one who pulled the trigger.

 

The one who loaded the gun and handed it to him is the one who is ultimately responsible.  

 

Can you please tell me who that person was, Edgarcito?

 

Right, wasn't our choice....neither was our creation that I know.  If you had the choice, the free choice, would you choose sin and death or freedom from sin and life?  I'm sure you would choose the latter, but as a matter of pride, you and many here are choosing sin and death.....(all given Christianity is true).

[Edgarcito]

I mean think about it.....we have no idea from where we came, no idea of the mechanisms for consciousness.....the creative aspect of the universe......not to mention can't even really define what's happening at the end of our noses.....yet somehow it becomes routine and we are DEMANDING that creation in itself, our place, is evil and there is no way we would have planned the insanity, the subjection, the anything we dislike...  What a crock Walter.  Grow up.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I mean think about it.....we have no idea from where we came, no idea of the mechanisms for consciousness.....the creative aspect of the universe......not to mention can't even really define what's happening at the end of our noses

So you place your bet on only one of the thousands of gods humanity has invented over the millennia, when any one of them could be the "real" god and the odds are completely stacked against your god being the safest bet.  Because you think you know.  Be honest.  Your position is not based on what "we don't know."  It's based on what you think you know.

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So you place your bet on only one of the thousands of gods humanity has invented over the millennia, when any one of them could be the "real" god and the odds are completely stacked against your god being the safest bet.  Because you think you know.  Be honest.  Your position is not based on what "we don't know."  It's based on what you think you know.

It's based on both.....the reality that we don't know a lot.....and personal observations.  

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Right, wasn't our choice....neither was our creation that I know. 

 

And that doesn't bother you... at all?   Not even a little bit?   Really?

 

That nobody in the entire world, up until the day of Pentecost, had the ability to choose to obey god?  

 

Because god had imprisoned everyone in sin and disobedience, denying them the possibility of having a choice? 

 

You're ok with that, Edgarcito?

 

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

 

If you had the choice, the free choice, would you choose sin and death or freedom from sin and life?  I'm sure you would choose the latter, but as a matter of pride, you and many here are choosing sin and death.....(all given Christianity is true).

 

But, since the Creation up until the Resurrection, nobody had the choice you're offering me.

 

Not until the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit finally started releasing all those imprisoned in sin by god.

 

And then that ability to freely choose only spread slowly across the world as Christian missionaries spread the Word.

 

For most of human history almost all the world never had the choice you just offered me.

 

Which, of course, is an act of horrific evil on god's part.

 

 

You know what Ed?  Right now I really can't tell if you're just blind to the incredible evil of god or if you can see it, but carefully avoid talking about it and just as carefully avoid answering any questions about it.

 

To find out I'm going to ask you a direct and easy-to-understand question.

 

If you dodge it, then we'll all know that you aren't blind to god's evil.

 

Please answer this question.

 

 

Was it evil for god to imprison everyone in sin until after Jesus' death and resurrection?

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I mean think about it.....we have no idea from where we came, no idea of the mechanisms for consciousness.....the creative aspect of the universe......not to mention can't even really define what's happening at the end of our noses.....yet somehow it becomes routine and we are DEMANDING that creation in itself, our place, is evil and there is no way we would have planned the insanity, the subjection, the anything we dislike...  What a crock Walter.  Grow up.

 

Have you finished?

 

Finished with your straw man argument?

 

In case you hadn't noticed Ed, everything I've been writing about here comes from the Bible.

 

 

Yes, the Prof was right about you. 

 

Despite all your protesting about how nothing is definable or knowable, in private you KNOW what you believe.  

 

And when those beliefs are threatened by scripture showing us how evil god is, what do we get?

 

Classic, dishonest Edgarcito tactics.

 

Strawman arguments, deflections, ad hominems and dodging the question.

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It's based on both.....the reality that we don't know a lot.....and personal observations.  

So we don't know if a god even exists; but you think you know that the christian god exists, based on personal observations.  Do tell.  You have personally observed the christian god existing?  You have personally observed what literally no other person in human history has been able to verify?  Quite the claim, hombre.  By all means, share these personal observations with us. 

 

We don't know if there is one True god, or many gods, or no gods at all.  But you think you know that the christian god is the one True god based on personal observations.  So you have personally observed Allah being a false god?  What was he wearing at the time?  Does he have a hat?  Or, is he a spirit who doesn't need to clothe a corporeal form?  If you personally observed him,  then he must exist.  Doesn't his existence, by definition, make him a true god?

 

We don't know if there is One True Religion, many true religions that lead to Truth, or no True religion at all.  But you think you know based on personal observations.  You have personally observed Buddhism to be a false religion?  Please list the Four Noble Truths and explain how each of them is untrue.  You must know, if you have personally observed it.

 

By all means, Ed; either enlighten us with your observations, or allow yourself to be enlightened by ours.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

You want to use "we don't know" as an excuse to believe; but then turn right around and use what you think you know to determine what should be believed.  It's as dishonest as it is disingenuous.  

[Edgarcito]

10 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You want to use "we don't know" as an excuse to believe; but then turn right around and use what you think you know to determine what should be believed.  It's as dishonest as it is disingenuous.  

No sir, we've discussed why I believe several times. Again, in my opinion, you are placing "what you know over here" on top of "what you don't actually know" about a particular..... and forming a conclusion about the particular where you have no direct data.  "Human belief outside of science is faulty" when we don't have the mechanisms for belief.  All you have is the many and varied belief scenarios and then calling it faulty.  Thx. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

52 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir, we've discussed why I believe several times. Again, in my opinion, you are placing "what you know over here" on top of "what you don't actually know" about a particular..... and forming a conclusion about the particular where you have no direct data.  "Human belief outside of science is faulty" when we don't have the mechanisms for belief.  All you have is the many and varied belief scenarios and then calling it faulty.  Thx. 

This is inaccurate, Ed; and I think you know that.  I am not forming a conclusion without direct data.  Rather, the lack of data drives my skepticism.  As it should. 

 

You say, "We don't know; therefore I will believe what I think I know."

 

I say, "We don't know; but without sufficient evidence, I will not believe.  I will refrain from forming a conclusion until such time as more evidence is available."

 

Mine is the agnostic approach, which is scientific, sure.  But it is also the same approach with which all claims should be treated, in order to form accurate conclusions. 

 

Your approach is faulty; and therefore, the beliefs it engenders are also most likely faulty.

[Edgarcito]

36 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is inaccurate, Ed; and I think you know that.  I am not forming a conclusion without direct data.  Rather, the lack of data drives my skepticism.  As it should. 

 

You say, "We don't know; therefore I will believe what I think I know."

 

I say, "We don't know; but without sufficient evidence, I will not believe.  I will refrain from forming a conclusion until such time as more evidence is available."

 

Mine is the agnostic approach, which is scientific, sure.  But it is also the same approach with which all claims should be treated, in order to form accurate conclusions. 

 

Your approach is faulty; and therefore, the beliefs it engenders are also most likely faulty.

Christianity has "faith" as an assertion of confirmation.

 

 "I will not believe" is not an appropriate answer given you don't have the knowledge base to support....

 

Bottom line.... you conclude, believe, and know without ample evidence to support...  

 

Edit: You're just as guilty in your disbelief as people are in their belief....and you know this scientifically.... which, what was the word you used.... disingenuous?

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Christianity has "faith" as an assertion of confirmation.

 

Unless and until something is confirmed by evidence there is faith.  But when you have the evidence you no longer need faith.   Because you then know.  Therefore faith is not an assertion of confirmation - it is an assertion of doubt.  Of not knowing.  

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 "I will not believe" is not an appropriate answer given you don't have the knowledge base to support....

 

Then, if you assert that the Prof should believe, in what should he believe, given the lack of evidence?

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Bottom line.... you conclude, believe, and know without ample evidence to support...  

 

No.  You conclude and believe without knowing and without ample evidential support.  The Prof does not.

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Edit: You're just as guilty in your disbelief as people are in their belief....and you know this scientifically.... which, what was the word you used.... disingenuous?

 

 Is this an admission on Edgarcito's part that people of belief are guilty of being disingenuous?

 

It sounds like it.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

You know what Ed?  Right now I really can't tell if you're just blind to the incredible evil of god or if you can see it, but carefully avoid talking about it and just as carefully avoid answering any questions about it.

 

To find out I'm going to ask you a direct and easy-to-understand question.

 

If you dodge it, then we'll all know that you aren't blind to god's evil.

 

Please answer this question.

 

 

Was it evil for god to imprison everyone in sin until after Jesus' death and resurrection?

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Currently it looks as if Ed isn't blind to god's evil.

[walterpthefirst]

Hebrews chapter 11.

 

 

1  Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

 

After verse 1 the apostle Paul lists many people who had faith and hope.

 

39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 

40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

 

 

You see how it works, Ed?

 

In Christianity faith is the hope for something that is not yet seen and not yet present.

 

But when Christians finally receive what they were hoping for, then they have no need of faith.

 

Christian faith only operates when there is insufficient evidence and knowledge.

 

When knowledge and evidence arrives, faith ceases and is replaced by certainty.

 

That is why faith is a confirmation of doubt.

 

But when certainty arrives, doubt ceases.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

34 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hebrews chapter 11.

 

 

1  Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 

 

After verse 1 the apostle Paul lists many people who had faith and hope.

 

39 These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 

40 since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

 

 

You see how it works, Ed?

 

In Christianity faith is the hope for something that is not yet seen and not yet present.

 

But when Christians finally receive what they were hoping for, then they have no need of faith.

 

Christian faith only operates when there is insufficient evidence and knowledge.

 

When knowledge and evidence arrives, faith ceases and is replaced by certainty.

 

That is why faith is a confirmation of doubt.

 

But when certainty arrives, doubt ceases.

 

 

 

Looks like it uses the word confidence.  Sounds familiar to you I'm hoping.

 

I don't wish to argue semantics.  Maybe I might be more confident in disbelief if you presented evidence for mechanisms of consciousness, belief, etc..... perhaps some energy that resonates that gives us positive assurance.  Might tie that all into the quantum understanding....  

 

But until, as I said, you really have nothing more than the Chrisitan....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Christianity has "faith" as an assertion of confirmation.

 

So what?

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Bottom line.... you conclude, believe, and know without ample evidence to support...

Yes.  In the absence of evidence, I disbelieve.  That's how skepticism works.

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You're just as guilty in your disbelief as people are in their belief.

Are you suggesting that I need sufficient evidence to support my disbelief?  As in, I am wrong to disbelieve in leprechauns until I have sufficient evidence that they do not exist?  

[Edgarcito]

11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So what?

 

Yes.  In the absence of evidence, I disbelieve.  That's how skepticism works.

 

Are you suggesting that I need sufficient evidence to support my disbelief?  As in, I am wrong to disbelieve in leprechauns until I have sufficient evidence that they do not exist?  

You are the one using science to back up all your stuff.  And the idea of leprechauns came from somewhere....i.e. an explanation.  So all I'm asking is the evidence to support you position or just to say, we can't know from a scientific perspective today which any decent scientist would do.