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

Disrespect is earned.

That goes back to the original question. The landlord has a say in what the tenant does on his property; the builder doesn't. So why conflate the builder with the landlord? You know the answer to that. The builder has nothing to do with the tenant. He turns the building over to the landlord and goes on his way. Why is it more plausible? Because you've been told to believe that? Yes. Answer the question. So you contradict yourself. Jesus paid honor and respect to the publicans and sinners. Why would He want you to worship Him instead of doing as He did? Why wouldn't we? Why would we have any use for a god with lower standards than our own? Why should we lower our standards? Why can't God raise His? Yes indeed I do. Is that a surprise to you? Belief should never be anything but a last resort. The book is far more reliable than your imagination.

I disrespect ICANT as a messenger because his messages are garbage. I agree with Tangle. Calling an ignorant person ignorant is not an insult. I'm not selective. And that has NOTHING to do with the rubbish about demons.

Yes, those are all aspects of the landlord. I'm asking why you add in builder of the universe. Isaiah 9:6-7 doesn't mention it. Your problem is that you make up your own God - one that isn't very plausible. Until you can demonstrate that there is such a thing as "communion", you should stop making that claim. And for the umpteenth-and-one time, the apostle Paul understood that we ALL have a conscience, whether we believe in your fiction or not. So why don't you understand that? We are certainly more effective than your god.

Of course you can reconcile them - just like you can reconcile a Hitler who ordered genocide with a Hitler who loved his dog. The God of the Bible has both natures. Only if you look at the New Testament as a "correction" of the Old Testament. There's no justification for doing that. Resurrections don't happen. What you currently believe is truth IS wishful thinking. Yes, and a child's Christmas wishes change over the years. And the stories about Jesus' life, death and resurrection are what some other scribe attributed to God for whatever reason. There is no clear demarcation between Old and New Testaments. Christians just arbitrarily start the New at Jesus' birth. Not at all. See Hitler. Because you keep repeating the same thing over and over. On the contrary, I keep insisting that the only way to understand the Bible is to accept what it says. YOU are the one who insists that we project 21st century sensibilities on it and decide that the New Testament is "right' while the Old Testament is "wrong". That's just your empty belief, no different from the empty belief that Jesus rose from the dead. It's wishful thinking.

In your quote, Stam is saying essentially the same as I am saying, that the Old and New Testaments are not two separate books; in fact, there are different viewpoints in the Old Testament and different viewpoints in the New Testament.Where the dispensationalists go wrong is in concluding that there are different messages for different times. That's like saying that the Democrats and Republicans have different messages for different times. No, I wouldn't say that. I'd say there are 66 books with different viewpoints on overlapping subjects. You have that backwards. The truths in Christianity - and in other religions - are derived from logic, reason and reality. The stupidity in Christianity is not. You're just having trouble distinguishing truth from stupidity. The socialist message that you spit on is in the Book. The socialist message is the basis of survival for any social species. It's a truth that the Book happened to figure out. Maybe some day you will too.

It isn't clear whether that's your opinion or you're mocking mine. Is it ridiculous that Hitler ordered genocide and also loved his dog? Why can't somebody have two wildly contradictory natures? Why would you accept one and deny the other? You c'mon. We can "see" a lot of things that aren't there - flying sucers, ghosts, etc. - especially if we really, really, really want to see them. Maybe you should show your work. Your answers have been nothing but empty opinion. Nonsense. The historical argument for Jesus' very existence is tenuous at best. There is no historical argument at all for an event that is biologically impossible. What you call "historical evidence" is no more historical evidence than the James Bond stories. There's a whole field of study called psychology devoted to understanding what and how others think. I'll tell the story again: I was practically born in church. I could quote scriptures before I could read them. In the first third or so of my life I spent more time in church than most people do in a lifetime. So yes, I think I do have a grasp on how Christians think.

No, I don't call myself anything.And everybody has a bent toward logic, reason, and reality. Some people unfortunately park their reason at the door sometimes. Did you actually read that sentence before you posted it? Why would anybody make their beliefs up on the fly?Why do you call your saviour Jesus at all? You reject what Jesus said in the Book. Why not just call him George?

What are you talking about?

Yes you do. You reject what He said about giving everything. You reject what He said about how to be a sheep or a goat. You belittle the very idea of giving to the poor.

quote:

---

Proverbs 30: 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

---

How is that not rejecting it? The Bible says that the early church did it. He was talking about "all nations". There are several ways to weasel yourself out of that but none of them are honest. The apologists tell you what you want to hear. That's like a doctor telling you to eat whatever you want. But you ignore the obvious answer:

It's pretty much the definition of apologetics. They want to defend what they/you believe. Why do you always go there? Why can't somebody just be wrong? Yes. Again, that's the definition od apologetics, willfully ignoring what they don't like in order to defend what they do like. You shouldn't trust my mind. You should use your own. That "entire culture" is still a small minority. There are other "entire cultures" with completely different theologies. Fifty Million Nazis can't be wrong is not valid logic.

That doesn't follow at all. The Golden Rule applies to how we treat other humans. We don't treat cows as we would want to be treated. So a "higher power", such as God or any other alien invader would not likely have the same policy toward us. Apparently you've never heard of science fiction. Not at all. I insist that we don't take talking snakes and giant floods seriously because we have no reason to think they are possible. Similarly, I insist that we don't impose a "loving nature" on God because we have no reason to think that is the case. I don't claim to know how everybody thinks. I just wait for you to tell us what you think and then I point out how your thinking is wrong.

Nope. Nobody has suggested that science is immutable. As soon as you can produce scientific evidence that resurrection is possible, we can start to examine the evidence for resurrection of Jesus. Until then, resurrection is just as impossible as walking across the Pacific Ocean or flapping your arms to the moon. "Why resurrection?" has never been the question. You might as well ask, "Why vanilla ice cream?" Who cares?The question is "How resurrection?"

Tell it to GDR. In the context of Jesus, that doesn't make any sense. Why would HE need to repent and repudiate His old lifestyle? Tell it to GDR.