Pick and Choose Fundamentalism

BrianI just stopped in for a minute but I couldn't resist. I think if you had even some of the correct answers it would do the trick, but this is what drew me in: There.
Now I corrected you.That was fun.......quick and easy.Gotta go.
Later dude.

themasterdebator.It's seems to me that if one is to respond to a post one might actually quote the post one is responding to.
Masterdebator indeed.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

In some disputes the points of view are so vastly divergent that it is unrealistic to expect agreement, even agreement to disagree.
It would seem to me that this is what we got here.
It seems that the points of view here could be expressed as.....A) Life is exclusive to this life. There is no "afterlife"B) There is an afterlife but it is independent of GODC) There is an afterlife and and the nature of that afterlife is completely dependant on GOD's will.If one believes in option A then it is unlikely that one could achieve any understanding of the beliefs of those who believe option C.
Believers in option A would view this current life as all there is and therefore would place a very high value on this life.
It's no wonder that believers in option A would view many of GOD's actions as vile.
However, if one believes option C then life here and now hold much less value then the real life to come. This current life becomes only a necessary but temporary diversion.
As innocence is the original state of human being (and GOD'S will), it can be assumed that innocence will grant admission to heaven.
Once one is old enough to lose their innocence then admittance depends on repentance and confession. (honesty)
Based on the beliefs of option C, GOD bringing home the innocent is not a crime but a gift.
The reasoning that it is wrong for a human to take a life but not so for GOD is also simple.
GOD is aware of a humans future and would know if repentance is in that future.
Humans are not. Therefore a human, in taking the life of another human is also taking the possibility of future repentance.Have a nice day. It could be the last one you have.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Exactly.
You did reply to MY post.
You did NOT address ANYTHING in MY post.
You did quote a different writer from a different post.Master debator indeed.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

I have questions regarding your ability to employ this process called thought.
Your writings seem to me to be more automatic emotional responses rather than thoughtful positions.
For example: And So, you THINK that foreknowledge and predestination are one in the same?
Really?
So in your world.......If I have foreknowledge that inserting a super heated steel rod in your rectum will cause intense pain,
and,
You choose to insert said red hot poker in your butt,
I am response able for your pain because I knew it was gonna happen?Hmmm.I suppose if I, before hand, informed you that it was gonna hurt if you stuck a red hot poker up you ass, you would accuse me of imposing an arbitrary law.It is becoming clear why you feel you don't need forgiveness. If you will not accept responsibility for your own choices then you need not seek forgiveness. Really? How so? This at least is true.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Ok Um, no. GOD would have foreknowledge that Ralph was gonna die. Then. What might have happened is not relevant, as it didn't happen. Thats what would happen. Uh huh. Um, no, that makes Ralph and the person who killed him stupid.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Ya. I guess so. No, unless of course you believe you are GOD. What? Humans killing babies? You betcha!

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Brian,
Just curious Who is this "Jim" you refer to?

While it may not be bad for the baby (assuming you caused no pain) it likely would be bad for those who loved the baby as well as those civil servants that had to deal with the remains.
The argument is crap anyway. If it's bad for you it's bad.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

What? Is this a serious question?
Seems to me more along the lines of "If we have no bananas then how can we go fishing?"
You have free will.
GOD observes you exercising that freewill.
Before you exercise it.
Foreknowladge and predestination are separate concepts.
I've had enough concept stew thanks.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Asked and answered. I guess if you you don't examine to closely.
Now, were you to give it some thought...... Who knows?.
Why don't you give it a try?

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Ok, why?
Do you have some reason for disagreeing or are you just feeling disagreeable? So, using your logic, (seems a bit of a stretch to call it that but, for the sake of argument lets go with it.) It's ok for me to steal if I feed the poor with the proceeds? It's ok to cheat if I can benefit some one else?
Ok. I'm not surprised. Perhaps you might try reading it. What? Let me see.. You say if GOD loves me he should withdraw my freedom to choose to love him.
That makes no sense to me, thankfully.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

I get how you might be uncomfortable with it but face it, the analogy fits perfectly.In that post I also questioned your ability to employ the process of thought.
Are you attempting to prove the validity of my questions? Certainly, however foreknowledge and predestination are not the same thing. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Perhaps not, but accepting responsability for your choices does. What?Insert red hot poker analogy here.I see where the head smashing the monitor thing comes from. It must be frustrating to be so confused.Again, observing someone making a choice is not the same thing as making the choice for them. Where do you come up with these little gems?
Do you really THINK that foreknoweldge and predestination are the same thing? Cause your entire argument reeks of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.
I hope it's just ignorance. I'm sure a quick, independant survey of those in your life would, in fact, reveal a great deal of offences that you could deny responsability for. Um, cause your human. Well, to start with, the things you write.
For example: You expend a great deal of effort attempting to establish that the observer is responsible for the actions of the observed.That dog don't hunt. Ya, it's gotta be difficult to maintain the illusion that your arguments have substance.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Perdition,
Excellent post. Well written, even a hill Billy could follow it, clear, creative, funny. You expressed yourself. Perhaps revealing to us some of your personal nature. This could be illusionary as well but I'm so glad you decided to engage. When you apply yourself you are a pretty good writer.
My favorite line: Classic.
Just like your argument, a classic.
When I first encountered this argument in my youth, ( Apparently it would surprise you to learn that even young hill Billies sit around smoking pot and discussing such supposed profundities?)
like you I was completely take in by it's apparent logic.
And the implications. Having no real religious back ground I had no difficulty with those implications. Clearly, we got free will, so we got no foreknowledge, so no omniscience.What about omnipotence?
Yikes! Any fool can see where this leads. Can't they?
I, like you, yanked this gem out of the tool box whenever I heard someone mention foreknowledge.
Airtight. It shut them down every time.
Then one day I actually thought about it, you know, critically examined the concept.Before we attend to the argument itself, I have a question. If this argument is so powerful, so unequivocally correct, then why did you feel the need to sprinkle it with missdirection? GOD did do something about it: Genesis 2:17 " but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."I know, it's seems such a minor little thing, like your attempt to disguise the nature of GOD. Why is this deception necessary? Is it because you actually perceive the error in this argument or is it just you expressing your nature?Typically I find, when a position, for it's support, relies upon misleading, deceptive, or false statements the position itself will be found to be misleading, deceptive, or false. Let's see if that is the case here.It would seem to me that it would be reasonable, when arguing logically about something, to attribute to that thing attributes of that thing. If we are going to argue about GOD then we must, logically, attribute to GOD attributes of GOD.
So. what can we learn of the attributes of GOD? Let's start at the beginning. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.Wow, the very first reference in the bible is to time. Almost as if the author knew time was a significant issue.
Anyway, GOD created the heavens. Can we agree that that is a reference to space? GOD created the earth. Planet earth?
No.
This, Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and emptyand this, Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world , from everlasting to everlasting you are God.indicates the reference is to the material of which the world is made. Matter.
So, if GOD created space and matter then GOD's existence need not depend on space or matter. To write of GOD as having a butt to sit on or a muscle to move is misleading. So is to think of GOD as large or small. GOD is non sized, non shaped. This is not such an easy concept to wrap your head around, that GOD does not require dimensions.
Time is a dimension as well and this passage, Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."would indicate that time also, is a dimension that GOD does not depend on, that time is some how different for GOD than for us. Perhaps then and now and here and there are all the same thing to GOD, I don't know, but this at least opens the door to the possibility that GOD may know the future without interfering with our ability to make choices.Of course it may be that we merely have the illusion of free will but the bible suggests otherwise. As does my experience.If GOD can create some dimensions it would seem logical to assume GOD could ,at least, manipulate other dimensions.Your argument appears to be logical but can not include all the available information, cause if it did, it might be wrong.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

That's very generous of you, however... here the the real hole in your argument.
What you would be taking from these individuals is their opportunity to gain admittance to heaven of their own free will.
As I see it the real gift here is the freedom to choose. No, actually it isn't. My philosophy, taken to it's logical conclusion, allows all folks to make their own choices and face the consequences, even if they may choose to reject GOD.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.