Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're actually leaving? You're not doing God any favors. For 2,000 years the church has preached basically one dogma. Suppose you were a judge who only listened to one side of the story - either the defense of the prosecution. How likely would you be objective?Here's where I get off.
I'm still here cyber-virtually. But I'm not going over that cliff with you. You can count on that.You're actually leaving? You're not doing God any favors. For 2,000 years the church has preached basically one dogma. Suppose you were a judge who only listened to one side of the story - either the defense of the prosecution. How likely would you be objective?
Let's start with something coherent. What does it mean to be conscious? Two basic attributes:Where did the "existing matter" come from?
That's like asking, Where did God come from? My claim is that reality, at the outset, was not properly called God, but it rather was a finite amount of matter which I refer to as the Totality (the totality of matter).Where did the "existing matter" come from?
There's an article in Catholic Encyclopedia admitting that the early church fathers put the Greek philosophers on a par with Scripture. This persisted for about 1600 years per the article (as I recall). That's where the DDS doctrine came from. There is an online book that says that DDS has been in the church for at least 1800 years.I'm still here cyber-virtually. But I'm not going over that cliff with you. You can count on that.
For 2000 years the church has been waiting for you to set them straight about the secret things which belong to God? I don't know why, but I'm listening.
Summary of the Trinity. Which cell in your brain is the real you? You regard yourself as one person but are actually a multiplicity. Each part of your brain has free will. Now let's suppose you divided all your responsibilities in life into three groups. Having done this, you might want to distinguish 3 physical regions in your brain where each region focuses mostly on one responsibility-group. In a sense, then, your overall multiplicity can now be understood as 3 main persons. Currently you don't have that degree of self-control, but it's conceptually possible.How "logically consistent" are the Trinity and the incarnation of Christ?
But I think you see my frustration, right? Every time I accuse Mark of double-standards and inconsistencies between man and God, he basically replies, "I can assume any distinction I like between man and God because we all know that God and man are nothing alike." Well, in my opinion, man and God are exactly alike from a metaphysical point of view. In fact we are literally shaped in the physical image of the Father seated on the throne, as I tried to demonstrate.By the way, we're getting way off-topic.
What in the world does consciousness have to do with matter?Let's start with something coherent. What does it mean to be conscious? Two basic attributes:
(1) Duration. It's ongoing.
(2) "Loudness" - that's the nature of experience.
Meaning it is an ongoing stream of experiences more or less distinct (loud and clear). When those sensations subside, therefore, it is called UNCONSCIOUSNESS. The duration (#1 above) has ended. By definition, then, consciousness is temporal.
What does this imply? A first moment, because an inifinite regress into the past is logically incoherent. In fact, if an infinite amount of time had to transpire to reach today, today would still have not been reached.
Where did the "existing matter" come from?
Uh, no it's really not like it at all. Not at all. At all.That's like asking, Where did God come from?
As far as your frustration goes, you only have to read my signature to see where I stand. But I can't say I agree with your counterpoint that God and man are exactly the same metaphysically speaking. I don't venture very far into metaphysical questions. I believe that the supernatural is as real as the natural but that also for His providential reasons God has chosen to separate them at least for the time being. I'm encountering Determinism here on CF in a way that is new to me and frankly quite unsettling. The idea that God harbors actual malice for the wicked is completely foreign to me. And if I could accept the view that He created certain people for the explicit purpose of living an unrighteous life and then suffering forever in fervent flames I would probably die of depression.But I think you see my frustration, right? Every time I accuse Mark of double-standards and inconsistencies between man and God, he basically replies, "I can assume any distinction I like between man and God because we all know that God and man are nothing alike." Well, in my opinion, man and God are exactly alike from a metaphysical point of view. In fact we are literally shaped in the physical image of the Father seated on the throne, as I tried to demonstrate.
I didn't intend to get this far off topic, but frustration gravitated me here.
I am not saying that all acts of God are of a kind. But they are all acts of God. Whether we say something is supernatural, or it is natural, is of little importance, in the final analysis.What makes us so stupid we wouldn't know? Is there a natural law that accounts for our souls? According to natural laws, we are just our physical beings.
I think determinism is bogus. And almost every page of the Bible assumes Free Will to be real. I don't think you got my point. For everything to be cause and effect, you can't have miracles that go against the natural order. It's like throwing a monkey wrench in the gears.I am not saying that all acts of God are of a kind. But they are all acts of God. Whether we say something is supernatural, or it is natural, is of little importance, in the final analysis.
Haha, I can't even remember what started this "by the way" line of posts between you and me.
I could only guess that claiming God's ability to give man the ability to make uncaused choices, is illogical. I can't prove it, except by claiming it contradicts cause-and-effect, as you take cause-and-effect. But even there, you claim it is God giving the ability. There is one cause.Nonsense. Can God not give his creation the ability to make uncaused choices? If not, why does God complain that he must strive with men, and that they do not do what he wants?
Ok so I guess the Gospel isn't simple enough for the common man to understand.
Scripture never says that "b" is never chosen so it doesn't have to explain why.
None of this equals determinism. There are examples in scripture were " sinners" choose good. But that isn't even really important here. If a person chooses between any two options with out that choice being determined by God, he has free will.You have a lot of scripture to answer for, if you deny that the lost need not choose but sinfully. I don't remember who posted, asking how can we say a mother's love for her child, or the Samaritan's sympathy and generosity, can be sinful (I think they said sin, not sinful). I don't deny that a person can choose to do the right thing at times, even most times, but that their choosing is still with bondage to sin. If they tell the truth, when it is hard for them to do, for truth's own sake, it is still only compliance --not obedience.
If you want to think of the Gospel as plan "b" that is your prerogative as a free-willed agent, but the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world and this sin-filled earth is an anomaly, an outlier in God's perfect and holy universe. If the Gospel was plan "b" then it wasn't pre-determined, either. Earth is in rebellion and under quarantine until the Gospel goes to all the world. Then shall the end come.Actually, it does tell us that "b" is never chosen. It says so many different ways, besides calling the lost, captives to sin. Romans 8:7 says, "because the mind of the flesh is hostile to God: It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."
I don't even know for sure what you mean by determinism. You have not shown me how free will denies cause-and-effect, and even when you try, you end up redefining everything according to the notion that man can choose independent of cause-and-effect. In other words, you are going around in circles. On top of that, the Biblical law of bondage to sin demands that if man is to able to rise above that, he does so at the grace of God, not by his natural ability.I think determinism is bogus. And almost every page of the Bible assumes Free Will to be real. I don't think you got my point. For everything to be cause and effect, you can't have miracles that go against the natural order. It's like throwing a monkey wrench in the gears.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?