Morality without god

You are welcome to take over where Paulk has fallen flat on his face. But I will also understand if all you can offer is jibes and insults.

Since you chose to ignore my previous challenge, Ill reissue it. You are free to take up where Paulk couldnt, trying to represent free will as simply a grammatical concept.He failed to deal with the basic argument that under any circumstance a person with thier faculties can still make a choice in the opposite direction.He failed by ignoring, evading and setting aside every example i provided him. he dealt not with a single oneHe failed to demonstrate how coiercion, influence and interference, could eliminate free altogether.Simply put he failed to demonstrate why God would give free will then quickly remove it, other than by reading into hyperbolic language, somethoing that is obviously not there. Or at bare minimum, doesnt need to beHe failed to demonstrate why the believer should have any reason to doubt either God or the scriptures, atleast in this instancethe only thing he did demonstrate is that as usual the secular fundamentalist humanist has overstated the case, ignore simple truths and is usually looking for any loophole to avoid belief and the truth. Im sorry are there talking boxes or not?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Think about it logically. When one attacks the story of God and pharaoh, one is assuming that God is actual and that he has all the characteristics attributed to him in the scripturesthat being the case:To suggest that God needs to coierce anyone into doing anything is ludicrous. God brought no tragedies upon Pharaoh until he refused to let them go.Actually the plauges were not just a demonstration to the children of Israel, they were a way to show Pharoah his patience and longsuffering twords even him.He could as you suggest simply kill him. Why didnt he? he showed more patience for Pharoah than he did Ananias and Saphirra and many others?Why would God need to lie, show off or brag. Such an approach is nonsenseIts simply the usual nonsense of trying to find contradiction where none exist Good point, now think about it logically. If Sin, which is a product of free will, is so serious, why would God give free will then just pull it away, reguardless of who it is. Judas, Pharaoh or anyone.You would be hard pressed to find anyone in scripture, where it was not the case that they could not exercise thier free willAgain, and it bares repeating, far from dictating pharaoh's free will, the plauges demonstrate his mercy, patience and long sufferingDawn Bertot

And only someone not paying any attention at all, would not see the phrase in the passage "he will not listen to you". It would not be necessary for God to point this out if his free will was actually removed, with no potential of being able to make his own decisions.If god was actually doing something to him that made his choice impossible, he would NOT have the capacity to listen. Since its clear he still can, your POINT FALLS TO THE GROUNDEven the passages give you the answer right in them and you still PRETEND you dont understandNow why doesnt that surprise anyoneDawn Bertot

Whereas I, of course, am, like any thinking person able to see that you cannot have both at the same time.God did not say he would not be ABLE to listen, he said he would not chose, even though the signs were multipliedOnly one of the choices is possible at the sametime. Either God took away his ability to listen (understand) or he did not. since the passage makes it clear he refused (chose not to listen), the choice was Pharaoh's all along.It is not logically, contextually or reasonablly possible to make Hardening of his heart, that he overshadowed or took away his reasoning or choosing abilityYour upDawn Bertot

First off its not the Bertot approach, its the Biblical approach. You quoted Romans, now look at another passage from the same writer. He is using hyperbolic language. Note verses 4 and five. Surely God didnt choose people even if they decided to not obey the Gospel. he simply KNEW ahead of time whos name would be written in the book of life.But, Jonathan Edwards, notwithstanding, the person is the one that makes the choice, even if the future is already known to God. There is simply no contradiction here[os]Ephesians: 1: 1-12 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he\[b\] predestined us for adoption to sonship[c] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillmentto bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13[/qs]But then in 1Peter he says: So how do these passages not contradict eachother? How can certain ones be chosen, but his WILL is that none should perish?A person is chosen ahead of time because the plan is in place before the person chooses. In a sense we can change our own future, even if it is already known to God.Neither the Exodus passages or the the ones in Ephesians are PROBLAMATIC, if one applies alittle common senseLets look at a comparative story, the story of Job. One could conclude from the descritptions and details provided in this story, that perhaps the devil or God was coiercing Job to make decision. Or forcing him into things beyond his control.But as the story progresses we see that no matter the influence and desruction of Satan, Job never looses his freewill.God could said to be doing these things to Job, because he allowed satan the latitude to test him. But in all of it Job never lost the decision to exercise his free will. Even when things were heaped upon him worse than Pharaoh.However, while there sre somethings that are explainable in Gods actions, there are other things that we cannot explain. Examples would be Uzzah, reaching out to touch the Ark of the Covenant and Ananias and Sapphira, lying to God in Acts chapter 5.I can think of no one that could give an adequate explanation as to the sever punishments that were handed down in these situations.Only to explain that God has his own way of doing things in this area (Punishment)One however, could not find an instance where he removed, interefered with someones freewillDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.