A View On Homosexuality...

[PatrickM]

God gave man free will...and then tortures us eternally if we choose wrong. Great guy, huh?

Sounds like it would be torture for you if you chose "right", eh? Actually a rather logical, loving outcome for those who "hate" Him, right? Would you be happy living with Him, whom you hate, for all eternity?

 

[SabreWolf/SS]

You mean a time when conservatives founded this country.

Ah, the tolerant, standard "liberal" view. Only tolerant with those who agree with you, eh?

If you think I am intolerant you should talk to some real liberals.

 

[FaithinJesus]

I dont agree...that doesnt mean that I think we should treat homosexuals badly, but I dont agree with being gay the Bibel tells us in both the old and new Testament that it is wrong and I base all of my belifs on the Bible

 

[Outspoken]

Whether or not this will have anything to do with whatever discussion you are trying to have, I have a bone to pick with this particular oft repeated explanation of free will and damnation. First off, God never restricts himself to having to have provided free will in order to judge. In fact, there is a rather blunt scripture describing just the opposite:

Romans 9:17-23
For the scripture saith unto Pharoah, "Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth." Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, "why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?" Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto Him that formed it, "Why hast Thou made me thus?" Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to descruction: and that he might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels od mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.

There is another problem I have as well. You state Hell is a place where there is no God. Yet, David in Psalms 139:8 writes, "if I make my bed in Hell, behold, Thou art there." Also, I am having a hard time finding it but I thought I remem,bered a scripture to the effect that the nature of Hell is that of suffering God's everlasting anger, not His absence. It's gotten late and I can't keep looking for it just now. *eeps* Perhaps I imagined that last, but still, I think the Psalm and the chapters of Romans illustrate my point more or less.

"blunt scripture describing just the opposite:"

I would disagree. its pretty clear we have a choice in the matter, thus romans 1. He REMOVED his presence because of their actions. We could debate free will all day, but that is not on topic.

"David in Psalms 139:8 writes"

I believe this is more aptly translated, the grave. This is not the place called hell by today's language as evidienced in the book of Pslams.

 

[Outspoken]

As I have said, I don't believe there is such a thing.

As someone who posts here (I forget) so elegantly put it (to paraphrase; his statement was better, I think, but I can't recall it exactly):

Actions are either caused or uncaused.
If they are caused, they are not free.
If they are uncaused, they are not willed.
Hence, there is no free will.


You keep re-iterating. Would you mind restating? I apologize for my obtuseness, but if I say I don't understand something and ask for a clarification, a simple reiteration using more or less the same words usually doesn't work for me.

By this I think you are implying that breathing is an act of will, even though it is involuntary? Something like that? I don't believe this to be the case. In fact, breathing is a pretty poor analogy for you, I think, since it's of a dual nature: it is partly conscious but has an autonomic/reflex/involuntary driver underneath our ability to consciously direct it. In other words, one can only control it up to a point--I've never heard of a suicide by holding one's breath. Have you?

This does not address really address my objection.

I said [/font]

It seems apparent to me that it's practically meaningless to speak of a designer as not interfering with a device he made when he designed certain behavioral contstraints into it, and he knew everything it would do from the time he released the design.

All I can say is if I'm a product designer and I ever have a liability case, I want you on my jury. "Well, sure the defendant designed the product to be unstable, but neither he nor anyone else actually pushed the product over when it fell and broke the plaintiff's leg. The product acted of its own free will--the defendant is not liable!"

Who said we were to be constrained to Biblical, Christian perspectives? I made a point early in this thread that the title should have been amended to "...according to the Bible," if one merely wanted to argue Bibilical/Christian belief on the matter, but given that this is GA, where Christians and Non-Christians post, a non-believer such as myself could hardly be faulted for assuming the OP was making a prescriptive assertion directed towards those other than Christians, given the title of the OP. I thought we'd settled that matter and moved on to a more general, less dogmatically constrained realm of discussion.

You are right, maybe. Indeed, logic is an unproven assertion (although presupposing only the practical reality of our own perceptions, I think you would agree with me that there is a lot of empirical evidence to back up the notion that it works as a matter of practice).

But then, so is solipsism.

That tells you pretty much what I think of your argument, I think.


Not believing God exists is not at all the same as believing God exists and rejecting Him, so you're wrong right off the bat.

Two things here. Firstly, Hell as commonly represented by Christians is not
merely characterized by God's absence. There's certainly a lot more to the story than this, especially among the more literal types of Christians. Or are you now saying you're more liberal? I didn't have that sense of you at all?
Secondly, if God is everywhere, how can there be a place where God is not? If God's not there then He can't be omnipotent, can He? And doesn't the Bible somewhere speak of Hell as a place God prepared 'for the Devil and his angels?' Seems like you're equivocating here, in at least a couple of different ways.

Two faulty, or at the least highly arugable premises-->very dubious conclusion.

"Hence, there is no free will."

So then why do you hold people accountable for their actions? This seems in direct conflict with your belief system. Someone murders your mother, that's okay, it wasn't their choice so just let them go on their way.

"If they are uncaused, they are not willed."

This is not a logical progression. It can be uncaused and willed per the defintion of free actions.

"even though it is involuntary?"

It is not always involuntary.

"In other words, one can only control it up to a point--I've never heard of a suicide by holding one's breath. Have you?"

agreed, but you can willfully stop it for a period. Like I said, I directed you to do so, and you did, thus by your logic I am making you breathe, which is clearly a pragmatic way to debunk your argument.

"he knew everything it would do from the time he released the design."

Here you make a logical mistake, you confine God to time. He created you and judged you, not nessistarily in that order. Here again your argument falls apart.

"The product acted of its own free will--the defendant is not liable!""
Nooo, those are inanimate objects void of a soul thus your linkage is illogical and flawed.

"Who said we were to be constrained to Biblical, Christian perspectives? "

Then you are not prepared to talk about free will to a christian, for a biblical perspective is at its foundations. Like I said, you might as well ask Einstein (sp?) to explain his theories without using math or science or words for that matter.

"You are right"

I thought I was as the holes in your foundations are pretty obvious

"Not believing God exists is not at all the same as believing God exists and rejecting Him, so you're wrong right off the bat.
"

No, its about the same, since God does give ample evidience that he exists, though people deny that evidience and in that, deny God.

"Firstly, Hell as commonly represented by Christians is not
merely characterized by God's absence."

*chuckles* I love it when nonchristians try to give christians their own beliefs and will probalby kick and scream if christians do the same to them. No, hell, at the very basic level is the absence of God.

"Secondly, if God is everywhere, how can there be a place where God is not? "

Who says God can't limit himself?

"Two faulty, or at the least highly arugable premises-->"

Noo, both are quite valid as shown by my refuation of your reasons.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : PatrickM

You mean a time when conservatives founded this country.

Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech, the right to assemble. The right to protest the government. Lets face it, the founding fathers were flaming liberals.

 

[PatrickM]

Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech, the right to assemble. The right to protest the government. Lets face it, the founding fathers were flaming liberals.

ROFL! Touche!

 

[Marz Blak]

"Hence, there is no free will."

So then why do you hold people accountable for their actions? This seems in direct conflict with your belief system. Someone murders your mother, that's okay, it wasn't their choice so just let them go on their way.

I don't believe in free will, but I also don't believe that we are capable of acting as if we don't have it. Part of the program.

At the root level, I have two motives for acting against the murderer: 1) revenge; and 2) social benefit. The question of whether or not the murder acted voluntarily or not in committing the murder is entirely irrelevant to me.

"

If they are uncaused, they are not willed."

This is not a logical progression. It can be uncaused and willed per the defintion of free actions.

Please define 'free actions.' To my thinking, cause implies directed action, and if there is no cause to an action, it cannot have been directed. Perhaps this is a semantic disagreement, perhaps not. But how do you think an event can eventuate from will and not be caused? Is this some sort of libertarian free-will construction?

"even though it is involuntary?"

It is not always involuntary.

But it is sometimes. What about those times?

"In other words, one can only control it up to a point--I've never heard of a suicide by holding one's breath. Have you?"

agreed, but you can willfully stop it for a period. Like I said, I directed you to do so, and you did, thus by your logic I am making you breathe, which is clearly a pragmatic way to debunk your argument.

Not at all. As I said, all you are demonstrating is that breating is an involutary act sometimes and a voluntary act at others. When it is involuntary, it is still involuntary, so I don't quite see your point.

"he knew everything it would do from the time he released the design."

Here you make a logical mistake, you confine God to time. He created you and judged you, not nessistarily in that order. Here again your argument falls apart.

While non- or extra-temporal 'chains of events' (we don't even have words for the concept, really, do we?) may pertain, I certainly have no way of knowing that they do. Do you? If you do, please explain. If you don't then this is just Unknown Purpose or Special Pleading or something along those lines, and is thus not persuasive at all. Might as well just throw up one's hands and say, "We can't sensibly talk about this--I can't sensibly explain it to you--but this is the way it is!"

"The product acted of its own free will--the defendant is not liable!""

Nooo, those are inanimate objects void of a soul thus your linkage is illogical and flawed.

And we do? Prove it.

"Who said we were to be constrained to Biblical, Christian perspectives?

Then you are not prepared to talk about free will to a christian, for a biblical perspective is at its foundations. Like I said, you might as well ask Einstein (sp?) to explain his theories without using math or science or words for that matter.

In other words, you are prepared to talk only in terms wherein the rectitude of your worldview is presupposed. Not a fruitful attitude for philosophical discussions, IMHO.

"You are right"

I thought I was as the holes in your foundations are pretty obvious

You again assert this to be the case, but you still have only made assertions to that effect despite a couple of attempts on my part to get you to state them in greater detail. And I'm still waiting for that book reference.

"Not believing God exists is not at all the same as believing God exists and rejecting Him, so you're wrong right off the bat.
"

No, its about the same, since God does give ample evidience that he exists, though people deny that evidience and in that, deny God.

The fact that the evidence is ample to you given your obvious presuppositions does not make it obvious to everyone. But you know that, don't you? Entirely spurious argument, in my view.

"Firstly, Hell as commonly represented by Christians is not
merely characterized by God's absence."

*chuckles* I love it when nonchristians try to give christians their own beliefs and will probalby kick and scream if christians do the same to them. No, hell, at the very basic level is the absence of God.

And that is all that it is in your conception? Christians seem to believe different and even in some cases mutually incompatible things about Hell. But even taking you at your word, what do you mean by 'at the very basic level'? You seem to be implying that there's more to the concept of Hell which follows from God's absence. Would you care to expand?

"Secondly, if God is everywhere, how can there be a place where God is not? "

Who says God can't limit himself?

Could an omnipotent, omniscient, literally univeral being chose to limit itself? I don't know, but it certainly seems to be an arguable question. Indeed, it has been argued for centuries, and I don't think anyone's come up with an answer that has settled the matter. Seems to me like one of those concepts, much like the concept of the Trinity for that matter, which is so contrary to logic that to attempt to argue in favor of it definitively breaks down into unknown-purpose/special pleading sort of meaninglessness. But that's my conclusion. If you have something you'd care to share on the question, I'd be quite interested in reading it.

"Two faulty, or at the least highly arugable premises-->"

Noo, both are quite valid as shown by my refuation of your reasons.

No, I think they stand.

 

[Outspoken]

[/font]

I don't believe in free will, but I also don't believe that we are capable of acting as if we don't have it. Part of the program.

At the root level, I have two motives for acting against the murderer: 1) revenge; and 2) social benefit. The question of whether or not the murder acted voluntarily or not in committing the murder is entirely irrelevant to me.

Please define 'free actions.' To my thinking, cause implies directed action, and if there is no cause to an action, it cannot have been directed. Perhaps this is a semantic disagreement, perhaps not. But how do you think an event can eventuate from will and not be caused? Is this some sort of libertarian free-will construction?



But it is sometimes. What about those times?



Not at all. As I said, all you are demonstrating is that breating is an involutary act sometimes and a voluntary act at others. When it is involuntary, it is still involuntary, so I don't quite see your point.



While non- or extra-temporal 'chains of events' (we don't even have words for the concept, really, do we?) may pertain, I certainly have no way of knowing that they do. Do you? If you do, please explain. If you don't then this is just Unknown Purpose or Special Pleading or something along those lines, and is thus not persuasive at all. Might as well just throw up one's hands and say, "We can't sensibly talk about this--I can't sensibly explain it to you--but this is the way it is!"



And we do? Prove it.




In other words, you are prepared to talk only in terms wherein the rectitude of your worldview is presupposed. Not a fruitful attitude for philosophical discussions, IMHO.




You again assert this to be the case, but you still have only made assertions to that effect despite a couple of attempts on my part to get you to state them in greater detail. And I'm still waiting for that book reference.




The fact that the evidence is ample to you given your obvious presuppositions does not make it obvious to everyone. But you know that, don't you? Entirely spurious argument, in my view.




And that is all that it is in your conception? Christians seem to believe different and even in some cases mutually incompatible things about Hell. But even taking you at your word, what do you mean by 'at the very basic level'? You seem to be implying that there's more to the concept of Hell which follows from God's absence. Would you care to expand?




Could an omnipotent, omniscient, literally univeral being chose to limit itself? I don't know, but it certainly seems to be an arguable question. Indeed, it has been argued for centuries, and I don't think anyone's come up with an answer that has settled the matter. Seems to me like one of those concepts, much like the concept of the Trinity for that matter, which is so contrary to logic that to attempt to argue in favor of it definitively breaks down into unknown-purpose/special pleading sort of meaninglessness. But that's my conclusion. If you have something you'd care to share on the question, I'd be quite interested in reading it.


No, I think they stand.

"I don't believe in free will, but I also don't believe that we are capable of acting as if we don't have it. Part of the program. "

These 2 statements are self contradictory. Any action that happens, regardless of your preception is something I MUST do. Thus my assurtion stands. Someone can murder your mother and you should not take recorse against them.

"The question of whether or not the murder acted voluntarily or not in committing the murder is entirely irrelevant to me."

It should be. They cannot be held responsible, thus both of your reasons are ruled out. So you cannot act against them.

"To my thinking, cause implies directed action, and if there is no cause to an action, it cannot have been directed. "

then your definition is NOT the commonly held one in philosphy. Why don't you define what "free will" is and we can see.

"But it is sometimes. What about those times?"

We only need one instance where it isn't and your argument falls apart

"While non- or extra-temporal 'chains of events' (we don't even have words for the concept, really, do we?) may pertain, I certainly have no way of knowing that they do."

You don't understand it so it doesn't count? Come on now. Its pretty easy to see that your God makes them do it takes temoporial (sp?) bias and you refuse to see out of your box because of it?

"And we do? Prove it."

If you're willing to say that people are inanitmate objects without a soul you have won my argument for me.

"In other words, you are prepared to talk only in terms wherein the rectitude of your worldview is presupposed. Not a fruitful attitude for philosophical discussions, IMHO."

Please think outside of your box. You can't talk about it with a christian because you have different a priori. We can't talk about phyiscs if I won't give you the 3 basic assumptions of science taken on faith.

"but you still have only made assertions "

You admitted the assertions were correct so I moved on.

"does not make it obvious to everyone. "

I disagree. I can deny your existance the same way you deny God's as an experiement if you wish. I usually do this with nonchristians to show them how much of a double standard they hold.

"You seem to be implying that there's more to the concept of Hell which follows from God's absence"

Exactly. At the basis of it that's what it is. Conclusions can be drawn from that.

"I don't think anyone's come up with an answer that has settled the matter."

No, its pretty clear scripturally. I'm guessing you just haven't read it.

"which is so contrary to logic that to attempt to argue in favor of it definitively breaks down"

It doesn't break down logically at all. Love to see you try and prove that though. I'll probably see you do some double talk and wiggle out of it though.

"No, I think they stand."

No, its pretty clear they have no ground to stand on and your wave of the hand doesn't change that, sorry they don't stand at all.

 

[Marz Blak]

"I don't believe in free will, but I also don't believe that we are capable of acting as if we don't have it. Part of the program. "

These 2 statements are self contradictory. Any action that happens, regardless of your preception is something I MUST do. Thus my assurtion stands. Someone can murder your mother and you should not take recorse against them.

Not at all self-contradictory. It can be true that I have no choice but to behave as I do while at the same time being true that I also have no choice but to think that I am acting freely. Who was it who said, "We have to believe in free will--we have no choice?"

Besides, it may be the case that I have no choice but to act against the murderer.

"The question of whether or not the murder acted voluntarily or not in committing the murder is entirely irrelevant to me."

It should be. They cannot be held responsible, thus both of your reasons are ruled out. So you cannot act against them.

My reasons were 1) revenge--the satisfaction I get personally from hurting someone who hurt someone I care about; and 2) social improvement-- providing a deterrent which may change the actions of some others who would murder (and remember: this does not imply, necessarily, free will on the part of the murderer, as providing knowledge that murderers will experience retaliation is simply changing the inputs that go into their 'programming,' if you will). I fail to see how the murderer's responsiblity, or lack thereof, is relevant to these two reasons for my action.

A rancher may not hold a wolf to be 'responsible' for killing and eating a lamb---seeing it entirely as a matter of the wolf's instinct, its programming; but the rancher will nonetheless kill it if he can; and the wolf, shot at but missed, may still take a lesson from the experience and thereafter perhaps find other prey.

"To my thinking, cause implies directed action, and if there is no cause to an action, it cannot have been directed. "
then your definition is NOT the commonly held one in philosphy. Why don't you define what "free will" is and we can see.

My understanding of free will is the notion that an entity has some ability to determine its actions both independent of any external influence AND in a way providing for some sort of 'interior control' of its actions which exists apart from its own *internal* influences (biological and social, etc.) .

This 'interior control' has never been very well defined or explained to me; it is just asserted. I have seen free will described as existing in a sort of poorly defined 'elsewhere', sort of like the soul. I guess it's in the same place, now that I think about it.


How about you? How do you define free will? I've asked before, I think.

"But it is sometimes. What about those times?"

We only need one instance where it isn't and your argument falls apart

You haven't yet shown an instance where it is. The breathing example was a poor one, because involuntary and voluntary breathing are two distinct, but superimposed, processes; so one says nothing about the other, really. Why don't you try another example?

"While non- or extra-temporal 'chains of events' (we don't even have words for the concept, really, do we?) may pertain, I certainly have no way of knowing that they do."

You don't understand it so it doesn't count? Come on now. Its pretty easy to see that your God makes them do it takes temoporial (sp?) bias and you refuse to see out of your box because of it?

I don't understand what you are saying here; the syntax is...garbled. Please restate. What's easy to see? "My" God? What are you talking about?

"And we do? Prove it."

If you're willing to say that people are inanitmate objects without a soul you have won my argument for me.

Obviously, people are not inanimate objects, so I am not sure what you mean. How does my asking you to prove the existence of the soul prove anything?

"In other words, you are prepared to talk only in terms wherein the rectitude of your worldview is presupposed. Not a fruitful attitude for philosophical discussions, IMHO."

Please think outside of your box. You can't talk about it with a christian because you have different a priori. We can't talk about phyiscs if I won't give you the 3 basic assumptions of science taken on faith.

I believe that, in this discussion, I have entertained your notions of reality AT LEAST as fully as you've entertained mine. So who needs to open his box, as it were?

"but you still have only made assertions "

You admitted the assertions were correct so I moved on.

As far as I recall, I conceded only that I am not formally schooled in philosophy, then asked you to restate your 'necessity does not obviate choice' assertion, and to provide a practical example of its validity. You still haven't done so--your breathing attempt was faulty, for the reasons I have explained. Twice now.

"does not make it obvious to everyone. "

I disagree. I can deny your existance the same way you deny God's as an experiement if you wish. I usually do this with nonchristians to show them how much of a double standard they hold.

The difference is that I can prove you wrong--just let me know where you are and give me a 2 x 4. Whereas...well, you know where I'm going with that, I'm sure.

"You seem to be implying that there's more to the concept of Hell which follows from God's absence"

Exactly. At the basis of it that's what it is. Conclusions can be drawn from that.

I'd like to hear some of these conclusions. Do you believe in eternal torment or spirtual annhilation for the unsaved?

"I don't think anyone's come up with an answer that has settled the matter."

No, its pretty clear scripturally. I'm guessing you just haven't read it.

I have read the Bible, the Oxford New English Bible in fact, but it was a long time ago, in my teens. Care to refresh my memory?

"which is so contrary to logic that to attempt to argue in favor of it definitively breaks down"

It doesn't break down logically at all. Love to see you try and prove that though. I'll probably see you do some double talk and wiggle out of it though.

The question was:

Could an omnipotent, omniscient, literally univeral being chose to limit itself? I don't know, but it certainly seems to be an arguable question.

I threw in the part about the Trinity, too, because it is in my mind the same sort of conception—the idea that some entity can be simultaneously omnipotent/omniscient AND limited to a mortal’s existence and perspectives (there is, of course, the third part of the trinity, but it isn’t really relevant to this discussion, is it?)

OK, I’ll take a two-minute stab at this question which, so far as I know, hasn’t been settled after literal centuries of hashing about by philosophers and theologians. But because it’s such a broad and deep question, I’ll limit my response here to its original context, your assertion of Hell as a place defined by God’s absence. You will recall that my response to this conception was to paraphrase, if God is everywhere, then how can He be absent from Hell?

OK, let’s for the sake of argument assume you’re right and Hell is the defined by God’s absence. Perhaps there is a God of the Apologists, perhaps there is a Hell. (I have never asserted that there are not such things, only that I find their existence highly unlikely).

How do we know anything about Hell? From the Bible? Inspired by God? But by your definition of Hell, God has removed Himself from it, right? So how does He know? How can He know? Does omniscience mean knowing everything, even things one doesn’t or can’t know? Does omipotence involve being where one isn’t? How does that even make any sense at all?

It seems to me that our understanding, our very ability to understand, these questions concerned with infinities or existence outside of our reality (omnisicience, omnipotence, omni- or extra-temporality, etc. ) are by their very scope ultimately incomprehensible to us, and so for us to accept any assertions about them amount to something very like special pleading: that is to say, what one is essentially doing when he accepts such concepts as the existence of the God of the Apologists is saying, normally we couldn’t really know anything about these things, but because it’s God and we have His word, we have to accept it, even though we can’t, really, understand it.

Can you give me one of your simplest arguments for the existence of God? I think I’d find some sort of special pleading at its heart; but I could be wrong. Try me.

 

[Outspoken]

Not at all self-contradictory. It can be true that I have no choice but to behave as I do while at the same time being true that I also have no choice but to think that I am acting freely. Who was it who said, "We have to believe in free will--we have no choice?"

Besides, it may be the case that I have no choice but to act against the murderer.

My reasons were 1) revenge--the satisfaction I get personally from hurting someone who hurt someone I care about; and 2) social improvement-- providing a deterrent which may change the actions of some others who would murder (and remember: this does not imply, necessarily, free will on the part of the murderer, as providing knowledge that murderers will experience retaliation is simply changing the inputs that go into their 'programming,' if you will). I fail to see how the murderer's responsiblity, or lack thereof, is relevant to these two reasons for my action.

A rancher may not hold a wolf to be 'responsible' for killing and eating a lamb---seeing it entirely as a matter of the wolf's instinct, its programming; but the rancher will nonetheless kill it if he can; and the wolf, shot at but missed, may still take a lesson from the experience and thereafter perhaps find other prey.

My understanding of free will is the notion that an entity has some ability to determine its actions both independent of any external influence AND in a way providing for some sort of 'interior control' of its actions which exists apart from its own *internal* influences (biological and social, etc.) .

This 'interior control' has never been very well defined or explained to me; it is just asserted. I have seen free will described as existing in a sort of poorly defined 'elsewhere', sort of like the soul. I guess it's in the same place, now that I think about it.


How about you? How do you define free will? I've asked before, I think.
You haven't yet shown an instance where it is. The breathing example was a poor one, because involuntary and voluntary breathing are two distinct, but superimposed, processes; so one says nothing about the other, really. Why don't you try another example?

I don't understand what you are saying here; the syntax is...garbled. Please restate. What's easy to see? "My" God? What are you talking about?

Obviously, people are not inanimate objects, so I am not sure what you mean. How does my asking you to prove the existence of the soul prove anything?

I believe that, in this discussion, I have entertained your notions of reality AT LEAST as fully as you've entertained mine. So who needs to open his box, as it were?

As far as I recall, I conceded only that I am not formally schooled in philosophy, then asked you to restate your 'necessity does not obviate choice' assertion, and to provide a practical example of its validity. You still haven't done so--your breathing attempt was faulty, for the reasons I have explained. Twice now.

The difference is that I can prove you wrong--just let me know where you are and give me a 2 x 4. Whereas...well, you know where I'm going with that, I'm sure.

I'd like to hear some of these conclusions. Do you believe in eternal torment or spirtual annhilation for the unsaved?

I have read the Bible, the Oxford New English Bible in fact, but it was a long time ago, in my teens. Care to refresh my memory?

The question was:

I threw in the part about the Trinity, too, because it is in my mind the same sort of conception—the idea that some entity can be simultaneously omnipotent/omniscient AND limited to a mortal’s existence and perspectives (there is, of course, the third part of the trinity, but it isn’t really relevant to this discussion, is it?)

OK, I’ll take a two-minute stab at this question which, so far as I know, hasn’t been settled after literal centuries of hashing about by philosophers and theologians. But because it’s such a broad and deep question, I’ll limit my response here to its original context, your assertion of Hell as a place defined by God’s absence. You will recall that my response to this conception was to paraphrase, if God is everywhere, then how can He be absent from Hell?

OK, let’s for the sake of argument assume you’re right and Hell is the defined by God’s absence. Perhaps there is a God of the Apologists, perhaps there is a Hell. (I have never asserted that there are not such things, only that I find their existence highly unlikely).

How do we know anything about Hell? From the Bible? Inspired by God? But by your definition of Hell, God has removed Himself from it, right? So how does He know? How can He know? Does omniscience mean knowing everything, even things one doesn’t or can’t know? Does omipotence involve being where one isn’t? How does that even make any sense at all?

It seems to me that our understanding, our very ability to understand, these questions concerned with infinities or existence outside of our reality (omnisicience, omnipotence, omni- or extra-temporality, etc. ) are by their very scope ultimately incomprehensible to us, and so for us to accept any assertions about them amount to something very like special pleading: that is to say, what one is essentially doing when he accepts such concepts as the existence of the God of the Apologists is saying, normally we couldn’t really know anything about these things, but because it’s God and we have His word, we have to accept it, even though we can’t, really, understand it.

Can you give me one of your simplest arguments for the existence of God? I think I’d find some sort of special pleading at its heart; but I could be wrong. Try me.

[/font]

"Not at all self-contradictory. "

Yes it is according to your reasons for acting. They are solely because you hold him/her responsible for an action they cannot help but do, thus your reasons are not valid.

"A rancher may not hold a wolf to be 'responsible' for killing and eating a lamb"

LOL..no a rancher holds them quite responsible. Your argument logically leads to no responsiblity for any actions, you know this correct? This means we can do anything we please and it negates right and wrong and directly leads to heodoism. This means you should fault no one ever for doing anything wrong or against you. Thus your value system becomes insignificant.

"Why don't you try another example?"

Okay, you will be alive right now. As for breathing, you can willfully stop it by killing yourself, or some other extreme measure, so it is quite approprate.

"So who needs to open his box, as it were?"

I would say you do based on your replies to my post. You are not thinking outside of the box as I explained.

"As far as I recall, I conceded only that I am not formally schooled in philosophy, then asked you to restate your 'necessity does not obviate choice' assertion"

Its a philosphical fact. If you dont' think so, go ask a philosophy professor. I don't have the time nor inclination to teach you something on that will take several days it seems for you to abstract. As I said, I'll get the name of a book for you and you can read it yourself.

"just let me know where you are and give me a 2 x 4."

No, you can't prove me wrong at all, though you can attempt to show your existance I can easily disprove it, for if you think sensory input proves existance then you must advocate the existance of God for people say they have experienced him in a sensory way. thus you are quite defeated in this aspect.

"I have read the Bible, the Oxford New English Bible in fact, but it was a long time ago, in my teens. Care to refresh my memory? "

I doubt you read it in your teens. I think you might have read a page or two. As for where it is found, the book of phillipians (sp?). It proves the point quite nicely. there you go, consider yourself proven wrong


"if God is everywhere, then how can He be absent from Hell?"

*sigh* you make several logical mistakes.

1. you assume that removal of existance consitutes removal of knowledge. This is incorrect.
2. you assume that God was not present in the creation of hell then removed himself from it. This is incorrect...

"very scope ultimately incomprehensible to us,"

Ahh so you can't understand eternity so its special pleading? No, if the eternal tells you something, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. that is just being subjective, and thus leads to subjective truth, which is pretty illogical.

"Can you give me one of your simplest arguments for the existence of God?"

As soon as you give me one for your existance that acutally works

 

[happy_face1988]

I believ that as a Christian, we should still love someone even if they are homosexual. We can still be there friends just not participate in their homsexula activity or encourage it in any way. We can hate the sin but not the sinner.

 

[Outspoken]

I believ that as a Christian, we should still love someone even if they are homosexual. We can still be there friends just not participate in their homsexula activity or encourage it in any way. We can hate the sin but not the sinner.

I totally agree.