Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 6 of 477 (547830)
02-23-2010 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by slevesque
02-23-2010 12:39 AM


Poisoning the well?
slevesque writes:
An easy example would be about God killing Babies in the Old testament. I'm sure the bunch of atheists on here can easily give the number1 reason they don't believe in the christian God.
I'm not sure what you're after here. Do you want reasons why atheists have no belief in your Christian god (or any god, for that matter)? Or do you want reasons why some people find the Christian god particularly objectionable? They're not the same thing.
If it's the former, then my own personal answer would be that there's no positive evidence for the existence of any being remotely like the Christian deity.
There is no way to disprove the existence of an omnipotent being, since it would be free to shape reality at will. There's no way to disprove Last-Thursdayism. But although human knowledge is imperfect, so far science hasn't come across any phenomena that either can't be explained by natural, unguided causes or at least are impossible to explain by natural causes. Arguments against the sufficiency of natural causes seem to come down to arguments from ignorance ("I don't know how that works - or won't look it up - so it must be God"), arguments from consequences ("I wouldn't like that if it were true, so it must not be true") or arguments from incredulity ("I can't - or won't let myself - believe that, so must not be true").
Basically, God hasn't left any fingerprints.
But if it's the latter, if you want to know why rational people find the idea of Christian god so repugnant, look no farther than the existence of Hell.
Almost any human being is capable of more love and mercy than a creature that would sentence other sentient beings to eternal torment for what is essentially the crime of being human in the first place. And don't pretend that it doesn't come down to that - it's a cornerstone of Christian faith that no one is free of sin, and only the unmerited intercession of Christ can save people from Hell. I can't imagine any evil deed, no matter how heinous, that would merit genuinely eternal, unending torment. That the Christian god expends such intense wrath on the vast majority of humanity makes him a monster. Most human beings appear morally superior to such a vengeful, nasty creature. I find it hard to fathom the ability of Christians to go on and on about how loving this God is.
However, it's a mistake to assume that an atheist doesn't believe in God BECAUSE God (the Christian God, anyway) is so morally repulsive. That's the fallacy of the argument from consequences again. It's actually incredibly irritating to hear Christians assert that way deep down all atheists really do believe that God exists, they just want to deny it because they love sin so much. It's insulting.
So given all that, I'll reformulate the second type of question. What is just or loving about a God that delivers people to eternal torment who, by reason of chronology and/or geography, have had literally no way at all of hearing about Christ, even though Christ is the only way to eternal life?
I've heard the following answers, none of which I find satisfying:
"That's why it's so important to spread the Word to everyone!"
"Everyone has the truth about God written on his heart."
"Instead of worrying about the Chinese 3000 years ago, why aren't you worrying about your own salvation instead?"
"But God is perfectly holy, so He can't stand sin in His presence."
"I don't know - but I'm sure that God has a plan."
Can you come up with anything better than that?

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by slevesque, posted 02-23-2010 12:39 AM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 1:52 PM ZenMonkey has replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 23 of 477 (547882)
02-23-2010 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ICANT
02-23-2010 1:52 PM


Re: Poisoning the well?
Congratulations! I was going to give Buzsaw the gold medal for Totally Missing the Point for Message 75 in the Is America a Christian Nation? thread. But you've blown right past him! He'll have to settle for the silver.
Yes, yes, blah blah blah, Adam's sin, not God's fault, Christ's sacrifice, free pardon, spread the Gospel, etc. etc. I get all that, really. After hearing it in a thousand different ways for years, I really do get that. However, you're actually making my point for me.
Given all that you've said as absolutely true, this path to reconcilliation with God (or whatever you want to call it) does absolutely nothing for the majority of mankind. Look again at what I actually asked.
zenmonkey writes:
What is just or loving about a God that delivers people to eternal torment who, by reason of chronology and/or geography, have had literally no way at all of hearing about Christ, even though Christ is the only way to eternal life?
The vast majority of all the people who've ever lived, even if you really believe that the world is only thousands of years old, have never, ever, ever had a chance to hear the gospel and know about this free pardon. Either they were born before Christ, or they lived in a place that never received the Gospel until after they were dead. And yet, nothing in the Bible or any other authoritative Christian text that I know of says that these people were sinless or weren't part of "the family of the devil." As far as I understand the English language, "mankind" means everybody - here, there and everywhere, past, present and future. No free ride if you lived in South America in 900 CE. No Jesus = no salvation. Or can you come up with other ways besides "the Way, the Truth and the Light" to get right with God?
Again, I'm not using this as evidence that God doesn't exist. God could be evil, the moral inferior of His own creations. There might very well be some wicked Jew wizard that can use magic to toss everyone in the Lake of Fire just because He thinks it's funny. But the way the rules of the Salvation Game are laid out, there's no rational way around the conclusion that God is going to make pretty much everyone burn. What the heck - it's even worse than I first made out. Most Christians can't even agree about what magic words you have to say to get the Get Out of Hell Free card. After all, you can't really be sure until you're dead and it's too late. It's pitiful.
I've seen any number of Christians twist and squirm, trying to avoid the inescapable conclusion that this is a totally revolting, unjust set-up. So again, why do you call this God who plays this sort of game good and loving?
Try again.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 1:52 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Taz, posted 02-23-2010 5:28 PM ZenMonkey has replied
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 02-23-2010 9:37 PM ZenMonkey has replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 28 of 477 (547902)
02-23-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taz
02-23-2010 5:28 PM


Re: Poisoning the well?
Taz writes:
But apparently, every single person in history of the world has had god revealed to him/her at some point. But they refused to accept god and therefore deserved to go to hell.
I've been meaning to go to the eye doctor to see whether or not my recent blurred night vision is due to medication or just to advancing age. Now, apparently, I'll have to go on emergency basis, as my eyes have rolled so far back in my head that the optic nerves are twanging like guitar strings.
Yeah, that does seem to be the best that Christian apologetics can come up with. Personally, I prefer it when they just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I'm sure that God will take care of that in His own way." It's more honest to admit ignorance, even if it's willful ignorance, than to make up utter bullshit like that just to make yourself feel better.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taz, posted 02-23-2010 5:28 PM Taz has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 57 of 477 (548008)
02-24-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Blue Jay
02-23-2010 9:37 PM


Clarification, please?
Bluejay writes:
God gives people a second chance in the next life if they are not given a legitimate chance on Earth. This isn't really said directly in the Bible, but it is kind of mentioned peripherally in 1 Corinthians:
quote:
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
- 1 Cor. 15:29
See, here's where it really helps to be able to read Greek. As I remember from the two years I studied it in college, Greek is exceptionally rich in prepositions, so the subtleties and shades of meaning Greek is capable of expressing when describing the relationships between things can't really be expressed well or at least succinctly in English. This phrase "baptized for the dead" is a beautiful case in point. What's this connector "for" mean? For the sake of? In place of? It's also possible that this sentence is a scribal insert, not something Paul actually wrote at all.
Being a religion of the book, Christianity can get awfully hung up on the written word, and sometimes significant doctrine hinges on someone's reading of a single sentence. My favorite example is the whole concept of the "age of accountability," which still ties in with my questioning the fairness of the whole Hell concept.
Now, if we go by the rules, if everyone is inherently sinful due to Adam's transgression, then that means that everyone is worthy of Hell from the moment they're born whether they've had a chance to hear the Gospel or not. No one wants to think that their little baby who died at two months old is going to burn. (Come to think of it, if you believe that life begins at conception, then all miscarriages are certainly going to Hell - no chance to baptize a fetus, after all. Sheesh.) But if you don't accept infant baptism, as most Christians didn't in the early days and many still don't, then this might seem just a trifle unfair. But God's a good guy, remember, so there's got to be a loophole. So they went back to a single verse (2 Samuel 12:23) where King David is talking about his own infant son who had just died: Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me. Many Christians have taken just that one verse as justification for believing that all babies and small children are issued their own Get Out of Hell Free cards at birth, not having actually had the chance to do anything bad themselves, and then at some point reach an "age of accountability" after which they're considered responsible for their own actions and have to turn the card back in until they do that salvation dance for themselves.
Man, do you have to do a lot of theological gymnastics to get the Bible to say what you want it to.
Anyway, this whole baptism after death thing seems like yet another way of looking for a loophole in an evil, unjust game. This verse from 1 Corinthians is a pretty fuzzy thing upon which to build not only a doctrine, but an entire industry. After all, isn't one of the driving forces behind the vast genealogic record gathering that the Mormons have done that they want to get names for as many people as they can to baptize after death?
So I'm asking Buz or anyone else with some solid study of scripture in the orignal languages to try to make this particular verse more understandable.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 02-23-2010 9:37 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2010 11:57 PM ZenMonkey has replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 63 of 477 (548442)
02-27-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Pauline
02-27-2010 4:34 PM


Sounds like God wants all of the credit and none of the blame.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Pauline, posted 02-27-2010 4:34 PM Pauline has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 79 of 477 (548497)
02-27-2010 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Pauline
02-27-2010 7:00 PM


Re: Reckless Endangerment
Dr. Sing writes:
Do you know how long it was after creation that Adam sinned?
Do you know how much of God Adam knew before he sinned?
Do you know what all God did for Adam and Eve to show His love for them in this time period from creation to fall?
No, and neither do you. You're making up made up stuff.
Dr. Sing writes:
God did not leave Adam alone in the garden. God does not leave places.
Again, where do you get the support for that, other than that you'd like it to be true? Seems to me that if God had to go looking for Adam after the No Good Very Bad Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil Episode, then he must have been out taking a bathroom break or getting coffee at some point.
ABE: Besides, as Dr Adequate points out in Message 75, this actually makes God more culpable, not less, since according to you he was watching the whole thing that whole time, and could have intervened at any time.
Make as many excuses as you like for the Mighty Jew Wizard, if he's really omnipotent and omnicient, then he knew exactly what would happen with his little set-up, and he's responsible for it.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : Taking advantage of Dr Adequate's rhetorical acumen.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Pauline, posted 02-27-2010 7:00 PM Pauline has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 87 of 477 (548544)
02-28-2010 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Blue Jay
02-27-2010 11:57 PM


Re: Clarification, please?
Hi Bluejay,
Bluejay writes:
ZenMonkey writes:
This phrase "baptized for the dead" is a beautiful case in point. What's this connector "for" mean? For the sake of? In place of?
What's the difference? I don't think there is a way to interpret the connector "for" such that 1 Cor. 15:29 doesn't say that dead people can receive baptism.
Except it doesn't quite say that.
quote:
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
- 1 Cor. 15:29
To me, this says that it's living people who are being baptized for the dead, whatever that might mean. It doesn't say that the dead themselves are receiving baptism in some manner. This may be nit-picking, but as I said, a lot of Christian doctrine comes out of nit-picking and all kinds of extrapolation. Thus I was hoping someone who reads Greek competently could clarify the grammatical construction before we come to any conclusions about what the theology says.
Bluejay writes:
ZenMonkey writes:
Anyway, this whole baptism after death thing seems like yet another way of looking for a loophole in an evil, unjust game.
But, that's what you were asking for!
That my providing what you asked for didn't change your mind tells me that your asking for it was just a red herring.
The point I was trying to make is that God's damnation game is inherently unfair. The fact that people try so hard to find loopholes in the rules just underlies how much anyone with a conscience intuitively senses that the whole set-up is unjust and evil. It's much easier for Christians to spin an unsubstantiated doctrine like the "age of accountability" out of a few straws of scripture than to admit to uncomfortable and inevitable conclusions. Doctrines like this aren't part of the system; they're ways of making excuses for the system.
As I said earlier, the Bible appears to be quite clear about salvation and Hell. The inherent sinfulness of humanity and the impossibility of salvation without Christ logically lead to the conclusion that people who have had literally no chance whatsoever to hear about Christ - even fetuses in the womb, fergoodnessake - are all going to suffer eternal torment through no fault of their own. To say that such a petty, petulant, vicious God is really so good and loving is the the most extreme case of beaten spouse syndrome that I've ever heard of.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Blue Jay, posted 02-27-2010 11:57 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2010 2:01 AM ZenMonkey has replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 108 of 477 (548599)
02-28-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Blue Jay
02-28-2010 2:01 AM


Re: Clarification, please?
Hi Bluejay!
Chill, my brother. We're friends here.
Bluejay writes:
ZenMonkey writes:
The point I was trying to make is that God's damnation game is inherently unfair.
I know what your point was. But, that point was just back-peddling after I provided an obvious and logical solution to the original question you asked, which was:
quote:
What is just or loving about a God that delivers people to eternal torment who, by reason of chronology and/or geography, have had literally no way at all of hearing about Christ, even though Christ is the only way to eternal life?
After I answered this, you redirected the discussion into a completely different point about Original Sin (which I find to be as morally repugnant as you do).
You asked for X.
I gave you X.
Then, you said that what you were really looking for was Y.
And, I justifiably complained.
I didn't at all mean to be evasive, and I didn't think that I was. Do you at least agree with the original premise of my question - that God sends people to eternal torment who never had a chance to gain salvation?
I agree that 1 Corinthians 15:29 does refer to some act of baptism performed by the living in order to benefit the dead, though I still contend that exactly how this is supposed to work isn't clear, seeing as how it's the living being baptized, not the dead. However, if baptism by proxy is LDS doctrine, then so be it. But it's still doctrine that's been sifted and refined out of a single verse, and it's a practice that's unorthodox, even heretical.
But far more importantly, even if baptism by proxy were valid and accepted, how does that help? It doesn't work if you don't have the unbaptized dead person's name! If all you really care about are LDS members and their ancestors, I suppose that that's not so big a problem. You can even be charitable and try to catch as many other dead non-Mormons as you can, though as we've seen, family members of Holocaust victims haven't been so thrilled to have their folks turned into non-Jews in the afterlife. But that's still just a drop in the bucket. Unless you can find a way to get full names of every human being who lived in China before 600 CE, for example, then they all still get to burn. Not many more people are going to benefit from this loophole than missed out in the first place.
My point still stands. The Christian god's damnation/salvation game is inherently unfair. Christians know this, as evidenced by all the efforts to make excuses or contort some exceptions out of scripture. And yet they continue to call this God good and loving. How's that work, again?
Edited by ZenMonkey, : A bit of rhetorical emphasis added.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 02-28-2010 2:01 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Blue Jay, posted 03-01-2010 9:57 AM ZenMonkey has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 118 of 477 (548682)
03-01-2010 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Pauline
02-28-2010 8:32 PM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
Dr. Sing writes:
My point was to say that satan never tucked himself into a random reticulated python dwelling in the garden of eden, he transformed himself into a snake so that he would appear tactful to eve since she knew the nature of snakes.
You're making up made up stuff.
Oh, and let's not forget Message 113 where you come up with this beauty:
quote:
Which is exactly why I explained what "you will die" is interpreted. Perhaps you didn't grasp it? Here's it in sort of a mathematical mode: you will die=your spirit will die=you will have no means to have a relationship with me anymore. This information is easily grasped by Adam since there is no jargon in there; you will die=/=your heart will stop beating.
Somehow this is supposed to be a clearer warning than just: "Don't eat touch that! It's Evil!"?*
Right.
You're defending the infefensible. It's mind-boggling how Christians ignore how clearly Adam was set up to fail in so many ways, and then still claim that God had nothing to do with it. The energy put out by all that cognitive dissonance must be enough to light up Los Angeles for a year.
So somehow the omnipotent, omnicient, omnibenevolent creator of the entire universe is so interested in testing his new creation just to see how much the man loves him that he 1) does everything he can to make sure that the man is going to fail the test (what's the necessity of even putting a tree of tasty fruit of forbidden knowledge in the garden in the first in the first place? and did the serpent somehow slip past God while God was getting some Cokes from the fridge?) 2) when the man has no way of knowing what the test is supposed to be about to begin with (no knowledge of either Death or Good/Evil, remember) and 4) God already knows how it's going to turn out anyway; 5) and thereby be so offended by this single offense that he condemns not only the man but every single one of his descendents to death and eternal damnation (Adam's sin = sin enters the world = everyone's guilty from birth). Wow.
Look, when you just read the story it's quite obvious that it was a set-up. The fact that you have to continue to make up stuff that isn't there in order to make your case should tell you something.
*Bonus point for whoever gets the movie reference.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : Fixing a fumbled quote.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Pauline, posted 02-28-2010 8:32 PM Pauline has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 129 of 477 (548821)
03-02-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by DC85
03-01-2010 11:49 PM


DC85 writes:
These two passages prove Adam and Eve did not understand the difference between good and evil. They could not possibly understand that what God said is the right thing to do and what the serpent said is the wrong thing to do.
It's long been my contention that in this particular story it was the serpent who told the truth and God that was lying. Just my take on it.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by DC85, posted 03-01-2010 11:49 PM DC85 has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 134 of 477 (548950)
03-02-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Pauline
03-02-2010 4:40 PM


Re: Metaphors in Genesis
Dr. Sing writes:
God told Adam, don't do X, therefore Adam knew that doing X will make God angry. How can you still justify Adam willingness to make God angry?
And also.
Dr. Sing writes:
I'm sure that there weresome fruit that Adam liked better than others and some he didn't like as much--which he would classify as BAD in his mind (who know,s maybe he hated pears---he would classify them as BAD).
Why do you feel that you need to support your case with stuff you make up? Since we're in the Faith and Belief forum, you need to support your statements with actual Bible references, not Stuff That I Think Would Be Good If It Were In Here Somewhere.
Sure, God throws down on Adam after A&E taste the Forbidden Fruit. But where does it say he warned Adam that he'd be awfully peaved if Adam didn't do what he was told? What he tells Adam is that Adam will go belly up in his tank if he doesn't do what he's told. God doesn't say, "You'll feel an estrangement from fellowship with me and no longer experience my divine presence directly, a state that can be thought of as spiritual death." He says death, and that's all. Which despite all your protestations, Adam wouldn't understand anyway. Sure, if he's human he can reason. (Well, some human beings can.) But you can't reason about concepts of which you have no experience and which have no context for you. As someone posted earlier, to Adam "You will die" would have about as much meaning as "Eat of that fruit and you'll find the derivitive of that function. See if you don't."

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Pauline, posted 03-02-2010 4:40 PM Pauline has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 146 of 477 (549084)
03-03-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Theodoric
03-03-2010 8:41 PM


Re: Yeah just ask these guys
From the Wikipedia article on Michael Servetus, here's John Calvin:
John Calvin writes:
Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.
Apparently, this is why it's a Good Thing to execute a man for the crime of Thinking Thoughts That John Calvin Doesn't Like And Even Writing About Them. No, wait. This is Why It's Just As Bad Not To Torture And Kill People Who Think Thoughts That John Calvin Doesn't Like As It Is To Think Such Thoughts Yourself.
Hey, at least I give Calvin credit for only asking for beheading, rather than torture and burning alive. This time, anyway.
But I suppose I'm failing to see this in context. Or something.
Edited by ZenMonkey, : No reason given.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2010 8:41 PM Theodoric has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


(1)
Message 147 of 477 (549086)
03-03-2010 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Pauline
03-03-2010 9:30 PM


Calvinist Logic
Dr. Sing writes:
The main reason I believe He creates this huge plan is to bring unsaved, spiritually dead people to Himself. (the doctrine of Redemption).
Um, but hasn't he already decided who's going to be saved anyway? He already knows who's going to be created spiritually dead, as well as who he's going to redeem in the end (unearned Grace) and who he's going to send to The Hot Place (ha, ha, see you in Hell, sucker). Right? Predestination is a mean son-of-a-bitch.
Your attempts to reconcile Freewill with God's omniscience and omnipotence still fails to convince, so long as God permitting something to happen still works out to be the same thing as God making something happen. If God sets up the whole Mouse Trap board as he pleases (omnipotent) and knows how each piece is going to fall (omniscient), then human beings have about as much free will as dominoes, even if God doesn't push each one over individually. (Sorry about the mixed game metaphors.)
Anyway, it appears that for you, whether you like to admit it or not, the universe boils down to something like:

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Pauline, posted 03-03-2010 9:30 PM Pauline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Pauline, posted 03-03-2010 10:23 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024