A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism

We've discussed before what a stupid idea that is. But that isn't what the Bible says. You should never get your ideas from an illiterate like ICANT. That's nonsense, of course. Ever hear of the Flood? Sodom and Gomorrah? The plagues of Egypt? And if pigs could fly....But they can't. And you can't pick Jesus out of the Bible and throw the rest of it away.

Indeed I do. Thanks for noticing. It's good to ridicule apologists and it's bad to ridicule evidence. No I do not. I use the only record of God that you use, the same one that is the only record of your Jesus. We have the same source as the one that says some guy named Jesus was crucified. You might as well use page 6 of the phone book and throw the rest away. Think that through.It's like Faith's argument for the Flood: evidence of floods proves that there was One Big Flood. You're saying that evidence of enemies proves that there's One Big Enemy.No.

I'm not cherry-picking anything. Eternal punishment is tightly interwoven with God, Satan and Eternal life. Dynamite couldn't separate them.

I only disagree when you're wrong. It just seems like a lot because you keep repeating the same wrong things over and over again.Say something right and I'll give you a cheer. I've even cheered Faith a couple of times, every time she's been right.

But it isn't about inerrancy. It's about what the scriptures actually say. We can reject the idea of an actual worldwide Flood but we can't reject the description of a God who clearly would use one to wipe out mankind. Theirs is an honest reading of the Bible; yours is not. They may come up with ludicrous, impossible interpretations based on a requirement for inerrancy but your interpretation is just made up. Realistically, they all did receive the same result. They're all dead. Realistically, there's no such thing as "ultimate justice". You contradict yourself. How is avoiding different from rejecting? I think one of the biggest errors in the Bible (or at least drawn from the Bible) is the idea that Jesus died for our sins. What a ridiculous concept.

That's like rejecting evolution "because it contradicts the Bible" before you know anything about the Bible or evolution.

But I do keep Long John Silver locked up in the book. It's the only source of information about him that I have. I don't elevate him to "an eternal omniscient pirate archetype" because there is no reason to do so. I accept that he's a fictional character and that he can not be trusted. There is no excuse for sanitizing the characters in the book.

I've done that many times. It's like the Godfather saying, "You owe me big time. Kill my son and we'll call it even." Why do you even need to be told how ridiculous that is? No it doesn't. It boils down to stupid apologetics. ICANT couldn't find his ass with both hands.We may all be "sinners" but there is no reason to think we "need" a "saviour". And there is no reason to think that killing a Jew will save us from anything. It sounds more like two wrongs making a right.Edited by ringo, : Spellin.

You have to start by reading what it says, no matter what time or culture it came from. You can't decide arbitrarily to reject the parts you don't like and accept the parts you do like. I agree that there may have been a real Jesus. Did He rise from the dead? No. Could His death and fictional resurrection "save" us from anything? No.The difference is that my conclusions are based on fact; yours are based on wishful thinking. And yet, if Jesus is God, He did. But that isn't what the story tells us. It says that if there is only one man who will accept God, then God is perfectly willing to destroy all of the others. I don't think there's much of a distinction between a parable and an actual event. The parables are actual events that are generalized to make a point. The cultural, etc. mindset of the Old and New Testaments are a lot closer to each other than they are to ours. You're the one who is imposing a lovey-dovey mindset on their stories and accepting/rejecting according to your own mindset. And I believe Hitler is in Valhalla drinking mead with Odin. Neither belief has much value. You avoid it by putting your own nonsensical message into it. On the contrary, I would say that the resurrection makes Jesus' death irrelevant. It's like telling a homeless man how much you're sacrificing by giving him a dollar - and then having him give the dollar back.

Or you may have been sent by the Flying Spaghetti Monster to show us how wrong Christianity is.

It really doesn't though, does it? "I believe," is not an argument. A pastor worth his salt would be able to put up a real argument. Remember that "pastor" means "shepherd" - a shepherd protects his flock with reality, not with belief. Good.

It isn't "common sense". After all, religion is more common than the use of evidence and logic. I don't reject anybody, no matter how stupid they are. I seldom call idiots idiots.It is frustrating to see you fawning over an idiot like ICANT. It's like Trump kissing up to Putin. You should know who your real enemies are. I argued with him a lot. He used to tell me I argued like a lawyer - I don't have enough experience with lawyers to know whether he was right. He was around until I was 45. I would think that "studying" should include challenging what you have been spoon-fed.

The message tells us that we will be saved by doing what the messenger told us to do, not by anything the messenger does. I'm rejecting the apologists' made-up message.

It's everybody's responsibility to tell the authorities when they're wrong. And what's wrong with that? I always give my reasons for what I dismiss. I have no idea who Dr. Carrier is or what his arguments are.

Some of them may be liars. Some of them are too lazy to figure things out for themselves. Some of them like to pat themselves on the back for having all the answers. Etc. Worse. Many of them are True believers. There's ignorance, then there's wilful ignorance, then there's militant ignorance and then there's belief. Can't you dismiss what they say on the basis that they're wrong? What difference does their motivation make? Why do you have to make it personal? Exactly. Ignore the messenger and look at the message. You have to look at each issue individually. Even with somebody like ICANT, you have to see that he's been wrong about every issue before you can conclude that his ideas are not worth listening to. What does it mean to "believe" in somebody? He's in a book. What differentiates him from Long John Silver? I wouldn't.