Free will vs Omniscience

ringo writes: I DEFINITELY DO promote equality.

All men are created equal. Thus I too promote equality in that measure. What I dont promote is eliminating the middle working class and "raise the tide" so that I make as much as you do. If you want to make what I make you need to earn it. Not have it handed to you and all the other "spangers" hanging out at the library or local pub.

And if you come work at my store, you start out making ten bucks an hour pushing carts. You dont geet hired to run my cash register while I am forced to do harder labor simply because I make more due to having worked 30 years in the industry.

And if you are a minority class demanding reparations for what the US did to you for 100 years, I'm not paying any extra bill. We are all equal, remember?

Phat writes: What I dont promote is eliminating the middle working class...

Neither do I.

Phat writes: ... and "raise the tide" so that I make as much as you do.

You already make more than I do. I'm advocating that the ones who make less than I do should make as much as I do because it's enough to survive on.

Phat writes: If you want to make what I make you need to earn it.

You know damn well that the masses clamoring for your job will earn the money just as much as you do.

Phat writes: Not have it handed to you and all the other "spangers" hanging out at the library or local pub.

It was Jesus who told you to help the poor.

Phat writes: And if you come work at my store, you start out making ten bucks an hour pushing carts. You dont geet hired to run my cash register while I am forced to do harder labor simply because I make more due to having worked 30 years in the industry.

Y'know, I wrote a fairly long post and this has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Why can't you discuss something honestly instead of just using me to bounce your rants off?

I want to clear a few things up in regards to myself, what I believe, and what I know deep down to be true. So in regards to my assertion that you want to eliminate the middle working class, you adamantly deny that you do. You want to raise the poor masses up to a level where they too can support themselves. I would guess that you are a few years older than I, and likely retired or semi retired. You have simple needs, as should I. I require food, clothing, shelter, and some sort of universal health care. Now to be realistic, Canada and the United States can afford to support their poor to a degree while other third world countries cannot. Mexico, for example, has no social security. It is the job of the children in the family to help support their parents.
One fear that I have is the idea that I, as a working class American who barely has much savings apart from what I may inherit some day am expected to care for the poor impoverished masses globally. And I believe this is what the conservative agenda fears about globalism. It is one thing to feed clothe and shelter the old people in Saskatchewan and quite another to also be responsible for Africa, India, and South America...Mexico included. Granted we don't do that now...except through the humanitarian aid and the military industrial complex fighting other power groups intent on exploiting the people...which ends up destabilizing everything anyway.

ringo writes: I'm advocating that the ones who make less than I do should make as much as I do because it's enough to survive on.

Again, that may work in Canada or the US and some Scandinavian countries, but is impractical as a globalist concept. Milton Friedman had it right. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. There needs to be an engine to generate the wealth to begin with.

AOC has talked of a green new deal. Question is, who in the heck is expected to pay for this practical idea? Greta Thurnberg? Essentially it eliminates the road to getting wealthy. We are all stuck together as a mass of workers against the wealthy rather than aspiring to become comfortable ourselves.

I mean...whats wrong with me wanting a new car with fuel efficiency, windows that roll down,(My old clunker has windows that cant roll down due to a flaw in the design)

Whats wrong with wanting a vacation once a year without worrying if the homeless guy has food and alcohol every day? If I were as altruistic as you (and perhaps Jesus) suggest, I would never be able to acquire things for myself.

Phat writes: One fear that I have is the idea that I, as a working class American who barely has much savings apart from what I may inherit some day am expected to care for the poor impoverished masses globally.

It's Jesus who expects you to care about the poor impoverished masses. Go ye into all the world.

Phat writes: And I believe this is what the conservative agenda fears about globalism.

What the conservative agenda fears is losing its own pile. It doesn't give a flying fuck about you. You're a dupe. As long as they can fool you into doing their bidding, they don't have to worry about YOU questioning their wealth.

Phat writes: Again, that may work in Canada or the US and some Scandinavian countries, but is impractical as a globalist concept.

Why? Instead of just parroting right-wing propaganda, why don't you THINK about it?

Phat writes: You cannot tax your way to prosperity. There needs to be an engine to generate the wealth to begin with.

That engine is the people.

Phat writes: AOC has talked of a green new deal.

What the hell is an AOC?

Phat writes: Question is, who in the heck is expected to pay for this practical idea?

See above. The people. Pay them more and they can pay more.

Phat writes: Essentially it eliminates the road to getting wealthy.

And that's a bad thing? Why?

quote:

---

Luke 18:24-25 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

---

Since you are fond of the idea of people "choosing Hell", there's something close to confirmation for you: People who choose riches are choosing Hell.

Phat writes: We are all stuck together as a mass of workers against the wealthy rather than aspiring to become comfortable ourselves.

Becoming wealthy and becoming comfortable are vastly different things. I advocate that EVERYBODY should become comfortable.

Phat writes: If I were as altruistic as you (and perhaps Jesus) suggest, I would never be able to acquire things for myself.

The problem is that you can't be as wealthy as Trump without being as vicious as Trump.

AOC has talked of a green new deal. Question is, who in the heck is expected to pay for this practical idea? Greta Thurnberg? Essentially it eliminates the road to getting wealthy. We are all stuck together as a mass of workers against the wealthy rather than aspiring to become comfortable ourselves.

Pay? Have a look at Australia. The states with the hightest use of "green" have the lowest electricity costs. Going green can pay you.

Pay? Would you rather pay the trillions of cost when Florida goes under? Do you like having air that kills? Green is a cheap price.

Pay? I have an electric car now. Expensive up front but that is changing fast. It's better to drive and, if I live long enough, cheaper to run so again green doesn't have to cost it can pay.

Just why on earth do you think going green "eliminates the road to getting wealthy"? It's made Musk the 2nd richest man in the world and investing in "green" made me more than the cost of the car.

Please explain and check your facts.

The reason Trump's "beautiful coal" plan failed utterly isn't because green cost anything to replace it but because green (and gas for now) is cheaper and pays you. Now gas is, in the right locations, being replaced by green because green is so much cheaper.

Pay? How about just taking the billions (trillions) paid to the fossil fuel giants and using that? Green and no extra cost.

You have a point, Ned.

As I review this topic, I want to steer it back to its intial premise regarding Gods All Knowingness, human responsibility, and the responsibility shared.

Ostensibly we are co-laborers with Christ on this planet and one would wonder if He favored Green Newe Deals over continued burning of fossil fuels. And I would agree that Yes, Jesus would favor a green new deal.

Ned makes sense in pointing out the cost benefits and in a big picture context, God likely would urge us to try and help each other globally rather than individually and selfishly.

As a conservative l;leaning believer, I would of course be somewhat concerned with the politics behind these philosophies.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

jar writes: If the god is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, and if that god has foreknowledge and if ANYONE is damned to hell then that god is vile, evil, despicable and unworthy of any worship or respect. You simply cannot have it any other way. The issue is that neither you or any Apologist has ever accepted the reality of the god you and they market. Nothing matters in this issue but what god does.

I never really felt comfortable with this argument. After all, who are you or I to judge God as being evil and unworthy of worship simply because He knows that so and so will fail at life 101 and will at some point in their future face judgement accordingly? I think I'll rephrase this question once again. I dont really like being put on the spot with your questions, for these are things I cannot know. Perhaps your intention was to show me that how I perceive God may be in error. So to begin....

jar writes: he issue is that neither you or any Apologist has ever accepted the reality of the god you and they market.

Fair enough. Let me thus rephrase your question back to you and add some qualifiers.

IF GOD is the Creator of all seen and unseen and is sovereign over all matter living or mineral (non-animal and non-vegetable) and
IF GOD is one basic character in the New Testament and
IF GOD is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and
IF GOD is in Communion with the Human animal here on the third rock from the Sun, exemplified through His Son Jesus Christ and
IF we humans in this forum are discussing Free Will vs Omniscience and
IF Jar acknowledges that when he says

If the god is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, and if that god has foreknowledge and if ANYONE is damned to hell ...

he means if GOD and not "if the god" since by agreement we are referring to the Creator of all seen and unseen... and
IF the Creator of all seen and unseen is commonly the God that we both are in common agreement reverently discussing.....
THEN
1: IF GOD has foreknowledge and is outside of time and free willed decision making which humans do during their finite lives here on Earth and
IF Some humans will be sheep and some humans will be goats (as implied by scripture) does it matter WHEN GOD knows and judges them?

If so, that knocks foreknowledge out of the equation. GOD simply does not know until GOD judges.

Phat writes: ... who are you or I to judge God as being evil....

We have had the knowledge of good and evil since Adam and Eve. Case closed.

Phat writes: IF Some humans will be sheep and some humans will be goats (as implied by scripture) does it matter WHEN GOD knows and judges them?

And you still refuse or unable to read what I post it seems.

Are you really so incapable or reading or comprehension that you cannot understand the difference between before creating and after creating?

Are you really that dumb Phat or are you simply unwilling to think?

Dont call me stupid. I'll take you on in an IQ test anytime, old man.

My point is this:

How is God limited by time?

Correction: How is the GOD YOU market limited by time?

I can accept that God does not fore-knowingly judge nor condemn us to damnation or separation.

Im not sure what I fail to see. Perhaps we have different ideas as to What Gods role is.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

We have had the knowledge of good and evil since Adam and Eve. Case closed.

Who put the tree in the Garden? Who planted it?

LOL

No Phat, you are just being willfully stupid.

Sorry but that is a fact.

You have no point and it is not that you fail to see; it is that you refuse to see.

Is there a time before something is created and after something is created?

Edited by jar, : add last line

If so, what I refuse to consider is how you perceive God vs how I perceive God. I actually believe in a supernatural perfect and powerful God. You apparantly believe in a God that represents a human caricature and who teaches us by our correcting and modifying Him. (Or Her. or It.)

jar writes: You have no point and it is not that you fail to see; it is that you refuse to see. Is there a time before something is created and after something is created?

It is true that im tired...probably going back to bed soon. I'll argue later. Also I think the word caricature is not precisely the word I had in mind.

ringo writes: We have had the knowledge of good and evil since Adam and Eve. Case closed. Who put the tree in the Garden? Who planted it?

I think would make God guilty of planting an attractive nuisance:

quote:

---

The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing a liability on the landowner. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property of the landowner.

There is no set cutoff point that defines youth. The courts will evaluate each "child" on a case-by-case basis to see if the "child" qualifies as a youth. If it is determined that the child was able to understand and appreciate the hazard, the doctrine of attractive nuisance will not likely apply.

Under the old common law, the plaintiff (either the child, or a parent suing on the child's behalf) had to show that it was the hazardous condition itself which lured the child onto the landowner's property. However, most jurisdictions have statutorily altered this condition, and now require only that the injury was foreseeable by the landowner.

---

Add to that list of examples of attractive nuisances old-style refrigerators and freezers (with latched doors that could only be opened from the outside, since replaced with a magnetic seal), and trees of knowledge of good and evil.

Who put the tree in the Garden? Who planted it? Who fully foresaw the injury to those innocents that that attractive nuisance would cause?

It is abundantly clear who is responsible. Looks like a closed case.