What if you seek and don't find?

[JonFromMinnesota]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was claiming. I said: Many have depended on the Bible and great discoveries have come from it.

Because a scientist was or is a Christian does not automatically make Christianity true. They may have depended on the Bible for their spirituality, but there is nothing that shows that the bible was the main source in reaching a conclusion in their research.

Now you are claiming that not only do I have to show that the Bible was their foundation but now you are requiring scientific research papers (how would one even go about getting such papers from such an early time?)

Yes. I do not care for apologetic quote mining. It makes no difference to me if a scientist is a Christian (many of them are. Who cares?). I want to see if you can substantiate a claim that the bible played a huge role in them making their conclusions. Where can you find these research papers? Go to your public library. If they don't have them, go to your local university and ask if you can make copies. Google scholar also may have the research papers you are looking for. There is an unlimited amount of information at your finger tips.

 

[Davian]

Lets take Matthew Maury: This is a fair accounting on his ideas bringing about his achievements.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=361

Kepler:
Kepler lived in an era when there was no clear distinction between astronomy and astrology, but there was a strong division between astronomy (a branch of mathematics within the liberal arts) and physics (a branch of natural philosophy). Kepler also incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason.

Johannes Kepler's first major astronomical work, Mysterium Cosmographicum (The Cosmographic Mystery, 1596), was the first published defense of the Copernican system. As he indicated in the title, Kepler thought he had revealed God’s geometrical plan for the universe. Much of Kepler’s enthusiasm for the Copernican system stemmed from his theological convictions about the connection between the physical and the spiritual; the universe itself was an image of God, with the Sun corresponding to the Father, the stellar sphere to the Son, and the intervening space between to the Holy Spirit. His first manuscript of Mysterium contained an extensive chapter reconciling heliocentrism with biblical passages that seemed to support geocentrism.

The extended line of research that culminated in Astronomia nova (A New Astronomy)—including the first two laws of planetary motion—began with the analysis, under Tycho's direction, of Mars' orbit. Based on measurements of the aphelion and perihelion of the Earth and Mars, he created a formula in which a planet's rate of motion is inversely proportional to its distance from the Sun; by late 1602 Kepler reformulated the proportion in terms of geometry:planets sweep out equal areas in equal times—Kepler's second law of planetary motion. He then set about calculating the entire orbit of Mars, using the geometrical rate law and assuming an egg-shaped ovoid orbit. After approximately 40 failed attempts, in early 1605 he at last hit upon the idea of an ellipse, which he had previously assumed to be too simple a solution for earlier astronomers to have overlooked. Finding that an elliptical orbit fit the Mars data, he immediately concluded that all planets move in ellipses, with the sun at one focus—Kepler's first law of planetary motion.

Kepler was convinced "that the geometrical things have provided the Creator with the model for decorating the whole world." In Harmonices Mundi (Harmony of the Worlds), he attempted to explain the proportions of the natural world—particularly the astronomical and astrological aspects—in terms of music. Among many other harmonies, Kepler articulated what came to be known as the third law of planetary motion. He then tried many combinations until he discovered that (approximately) "The square of the periodic times are to each other as the cubes of the mean distances." When conjoined with Christian Huygens' newly discovered law of centrifugal force it enabled Isaac Newton and othersto demonstrate independently that the presumed gravitational attraction between the Sun and its planets decreased with the square of the distance between them.

http://satucket.com/lectionary/copernicus_kepler.htm

Faraday: For Faraday, intellectual authority could never reside in the products of pure reason, or ungrounded human imagination. He remarked that he was a very `imaginative person, and could believe in the Arabian Nights as easily as in the Encyclopaedia, but facts were important to me & saved me'. He kept this imagination in check by turning to `facts'. A `fundamental fact ... never fails us, its evidence is always true'. Primarily, in science, this meant experiments. `Without experiment I am nothing', he said, and saw all of science as founded on carefully observed facts, distinguished from opinion or conjecture. As his own publications show, this did not mean that science excluded imaginative insights or interpretations, but what remained essential was that the distinction between the experimental facts and the theoretical interpretations should always be scrupulously maintained. Modern philosphers of science would, in the main, regard Faraday's conception of experimental facts as hopelessly naive. They would insist that all observations are `theory-laden' and that there is no such thing as a bare fact. However, they are not in Faraday's privileged position. He was able almost immediately to verify for himself in the laboratory essentially all the the scientific reports he read. `I was never able to make a fact my own without seeing it', he wrote. Perhaps if today, experimental verification were as immediate as it was in Faraday's time, the philosphers' outlook would be closer to his. As an experimentalist myself, I tend to be more in sympathy with Faraday than with them. Moreover, many a modern scientific paper would be greatly improved by maintaining a clearer distinction between experimental observations and their interpretation.
In parallel with this reliance on a direct reading of the book of nature, Faraday, along with his fellow Sandemanians, saw spiritual authority as flowing from a direct reading of God's other book, the Bible. He saw this as an anchor against the influence of emotion, superstition, and spiritual or political domination. In response to a question about revivalism, he writes,
` ... the Christian who is taught of God ... finds his guide in the Word of God ... and looks for no assurance beyond what the Word can give him ...
The Christan religion is a revelation, and that revelation is the Word of God. ... No revival and no temporal teaching comes between it and him. He who is taught of the Holy Spirit needs no crowd and no revival to teach him; if he stand alone he is fully taught ...

http://silas.psfc.mit.edu/Faraday/

"... [Keplar] perceived the Bible to be a spiritual and not a scientific guide. He held reason to be above authority in matters of natural philosophy, while authority (that is, church and Scripture) ruled in matters of religion."

http://www.adherents.com/people/pk/Johannes_Kepler.html

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because a scientist was or is a Christian does not automatically make Christianity true. They may have depended on the Bible for their spirituality, but there is nothing that shows that the bible was the main source in reaching a conclusion in their research.



Yes. I do not care for apologetic quote mining. It makes no difference to me if a scientist is a Christian (many of them are. Who cares?). I want to see if you can substantiate a claim that the bible played a huge role in them making their conclusions. Where can you find these research papers? Go to your public library. If they don't have them, go to your local university and ask if you can make copies. Google scholar also may have the research papers you are looking for. There is an unlimited amount of information at your finger tips.

Like I said, I can quote how their belief in the Bible contributed to their thinking concerning their work. That was my point and that is what can be substantiated. As far as the papers, I really doubt that papers from the 1800's are available.

 

[Athée]

Uh...yes...?

You gave me a quote and an image from Men in Black, I responded with my favourite quote from the movie.

But in many cases we do know. For instance, we know now that there are elements in the universe that support conclusions that God exists. It isn't from what we don't know but what we do know.

I disagree, there are things about the universe that are consistent with a God existing this is true. However, there is no way of telling of this is the case because a God exists and made the universe this way or if God is a human invention specifically crafted to explain the features of our universe that seem beyond comprehension. Is there anything we know about the universe that supports the former over the later?

Morality would be a property of goodness, but what property does goodness come from? It seems that if Ed is truly evil, he is then violating objective moral standards and from what origin do they arise? Not Ed who is evil and who violates that which is good, so there must be something or someone greater than Ed from which the rules or obligations from which he is violating arise.

Good effort You have it backwards though. Evil is actually the normative standard and episodes of goodness are a violation of those standards which Ed allows only to pursue his goal of causing maximal suffering.

No, what I am saying is that I do believe that they were created as described in the Bible but how that occurred I've no clue.

OK so Adam was literally made out of dust and had no "parents", but he is also a hominid that appears in the middle of the evolution of hominids?
Why would this story be literal, Adam made from actual dust and Eve from his rib, but the 24 hour days as described in genesis are not literal and mean ages?

Are you claiming that there is no evil that should receive punishment, and no person deserves to die for the harm they have caused?

I have addressed this smokescreen before... To reiterate, consequences are justified in many cases and no I am getting really not in favour of the death penalty.
But you didn't address the issue. In this story God tells us ahead if time that he will be overriding Pharaoh's will for the purpose of demonstrating his glory. This turns out to mean, forcing Pharaoh to sin against God (against Pharaoh's will - otherwise God would not have had to say he was going to override it) and killing a multitude of Egyptians to prove how great God is.
Shifting the burden to me to answer a question I have already answered in no way adresses the moral bankruptcy of this act by God. You can claim they had it coming, that they are all sinners and deserve it, whatever, the pont remains that you are worshipping a God who forces a leader to sin and then punishes not only the leader but also the people who had no input into the matter. I get why this makes you uncomfortable but of your God exists, this is the reality. At the very best we can say that in this moment the killing of Egyptians was considered justified by your God to glorify himself.

Infants and toddlers will not burn in hell...period. Jesus said that everyone must become like children to inherit the kingdom of God. So lets not claim that toddlers will burn in hell, it is not what Christian theology claims.

Again I understand why you are uncomfortable about all this. It is difficult to admit outright that you worship a God that kills children. So I get why you want to say that all kids go to heaven... But the Bible just doesn't support this. The verse you quoted can't reasonably be taken to mean that all children go to heaven. Jesus is talking to adults telling them that they should have the same solid and unquestioning, immature kind of faith that kids have. So first he is talking about children old enough to have enough understanding of the issues to be said to have faith. At the time Jesus allegedly said these words there would have been other children if like age, with absolute fist in Bal and other gods so clearly Jesus is not offering a golden ticket to heaven for all kids in that verse.
Again I have to point out that not all the tribes of Christianity agree with you on this issue, which is why many of them baptise thier babies at the first available opportunity, so that if they die they can still go to heaven, whereas they would not have if the baptism hadn't happened yet.

So children all children below an age that do not know one way or the other of God would not be destined for hell in the first place.

This is interesting, are you saying that kids who are too young to have an understanding of good and evil shouldn't be held accountable and still get to go to heaven?

Now, "people" the created going to hell. All people sin. God will always act upon His own character which is always righteous and always just. For all people, for all times. Sin is sin in all people and in all times. Not one created person will ever not deserve judgement. God's character is always merciful. So He gives all people in all times the means to wash their sin away.

You can call it righteous if you like but that doesn't make it less monstrous. The post you are missing over and over is that God has the power to change all this if our souls were the priority for him. He can nudge us hard enough that we will freely choose him. The fact that he doesn't shows that our souls are just not the top priority.
You said that not one created person will ever not deserve judgement but again this is the system God set up so this is still on him.
Finnaly I don't see where the justification is for that last claim that God provides a way for all people in all times. Prior to Jesus is was just for the Israelites and as we saw in Thessalonians there is an expiry date so there are people after that who will not be allowed heaven either (we have to assume there will be infants and such in these days as well... Tough luck for them)

Darn, I really am pulling for you too. I want you to spend an eternity with those you love.

You mean like a 10 hour family road trip when the snacks are gone and the air conditioning is broken? No thanks

He has always existed

I guess this is another one of those assertions that are dependent on the Bible so I will leave that for another time.

Can God make a square circle? Its the same issue.

You have asserted this is the case that it is a logical impossibility but there is just no way of justifying that. I can't prove it is possible either of course but it seems to me that in the absence of evidence we should in this case err on the side of believing that the omnipotent God of the universe could do it if he had a reason to.

I don't think that is established. I know that God says we have a choice. He can and has determined how someone He knew would reject Him in any possible world at any possible time would be placed for His purpose but I don't believe that He takes away their right to salvation.

God predestined the elect. Period.
Everyone else that gets created are just the pawns on the board, meant to be discarded, they never were going to get a chance at salvation in the first place because they were not elected (chosen).

It wasn't a virtuous decision as He went after the Jews even after He said they could go free. Not to mention the fact that Pharaoh had dealt very harshly with the Jews even to the act of killing all the Hebrew first born males.

OK so Pharaoh had a track record of being a jerk, I get it but God still made sure he would sin then punishes him for it. Can you imagine (in front of all your other kids) forcing one child to take an ice cream sandwich from the freezer and forcing him to eat it (despite him saying he doesn't want to cause he knows it is wrong) and then punishing him for doing so, just to show your other kids how awesomely powerful and glorious you are? This is exactly what God did,except the punishes killing humans.

What we know and what has been shown is that God will predestine people to be used for His purposes and yes His glory but that doesn't mean He acts against their own will.

If they choices and actions of a person are all predestined by God. And remember that predestination does not mean simply knowing ahead of time, it means that no matter what there is only one possible outcome chosen by God, how does anyone have free will?

You weren't talking about the sermon on the mount?

I was but you did the address the verses in that sermon that I quoted for you. I agree Jesus says that the entirety of the law can be summed up in those two commands but he also says that you are to follow every one of the laws and teach others to do likewise.

That is simply untrue. On what basis do you claim that they were denied a relationship with God or that they were unaware and had no warning from God?

Well the Bible is allegedly from God and it is, as far as I know, the only record of Yahweh communicating with us. Is there anything in that book that would make you think that God was in a loving, salvific, covenant relationship with anyone other that the Israelites?

God was on their side but would not force them to act. They feared the iron chariots and would not have faith in God's word.

I remember saying that exact thing as a believer The problem of course is that you are reading that into the text and it simply isn't there. The verse says that God was with them, but even though God was with them he couldn't defeat the iron chariots.

If you create only souls that would be saved takes away real love.

How? Let's say that your family is the only family on earth for some reason and that all of you are true believers and all of you will be saved. Are you saying that in that context there is no true love of each other or of God?

He has given people 2,000 years warning that if they take the mark of the beast they seal the deal and there is no turning back.

The 2000 years is irrelevant, God set it all up ahead of time, knowing that those 2000 years of warnings would mostly be ingnored or misunderstood. That's like printing "may cause cancer" on the inside of pre-rolled cigarettes paper and then telling people you gave them fair warning. The point is God knew his warning would be insufficient to save most of the souls he created and did nothing to change this.

Knowing something doesn't mean you made it happen.

But God doesn't simply know ahead of time. He actuated the universe, he created with action and intent all of it. It is all going according to the plan he set in motion. So yes he is responsible.

Yes, that God allowed behavior due to the time the Hebrews lived and the culture that they lived in.

At best you have support for proof of concept. You have evidence that God was not actually in favour of divorce but let them do it anyway. You do not have similar evidence for slavery and so the most natural reading of those verses is that God didn't mind slave relationships where humans could be beaten to near death without penalty.
But more to the point. What happened to God being completely righteous and holy, incompatible with sin? Why did he give them super strict instructions on all manner of sins but allow them to go on sinning in marriage? This is inconsistent with the character of God that you have been arguing.

What would a slave do with money? They had no possessions. There was no reason for compensation because they didn't work for money.

The point was not nor has it ever been the slave should be reimbursed in a fair way for being beaten to near death. The point is that it is wrong to treat a human being that way and your God allowed it.

But lets just say that God wants slavery for some reason, what reason would that be? Why would God wish some people to be indentured to others? What glory would that give him? What purpose would that have for Him?

Exactly! The only thing I can come up with is that like the tragedy of the passover, slavery somehow promotes God's glory. I actually think the more likely reason it is in there is that slavery is a super profitable thing for the owners and that the culture of the day wanted a moral justification for continuing to exploit other humans. So they put these words in God's mouth to lend legitimacy to the practice of slavery erythrocyte that they had already established and wanted to continue.

s. I do believe that God didn't condone slavery but allowed it because He was making a holier people than the times allowed

This seems so bizarre to me. You are arguing that instead of telling his people the most moral way to live (although he did in 613 other instances) that God was happy with helping them be a little less evil.
Thats like teaching your child to only steal the 1's 5's and 10's from the offering plate because stealing the 20's would be wrong.

If it were different and I didn't think that these actions were justified, I would still worship Him and this is why: God is more powerful and more intelligent Being than wildly imaginable and has given me life. He has given me people in my life that I cherish and has allowed me to love and to enjoy the beauty that exists on this earth. He has provided the means in which I survive. A

This is very alarming to me. You are saying that even of you believed God was a moral monster, you would worship him because at least he has been good to you.

Not to worship Him would be a senseless act of total personal debasement and self destruction.

Maybe it would be. Do you believe that we should ever stand up against an authority that is acting in horrendous ways? To bring up Hitler just for convenience... If you were in Nazi Germany and Hitler knows your family and treats you very well, but you also believed that Hitler was a monster for what he was doing to the Jews, would you worship him for taking care of you and yours, while he tortured millions of others?

I'm left wondering how you meant it then. I don't see any other way it could have come across. I accept your apologies but I don't know how I could think anything other than what I did.

I did apologize, and I did try to explain that I meant it only as a reminder of what the point was. In retrospect it was not well done on my part and your interpretation of it was totally justified. Again my apologies

 

[Oncedeceived]

You gave me a quote and an image from Men in Black, I responded with my favourite quote from the movie.

Well that just flew over my head....didn't even recognize it.

I disagree, there are things about the universe that are consistent with a God existing this is true. However, there is no way of telling of this is the case because a God exists and made the universe this way or if God is a human invention specifically crafted to explain the features of our universe that seem beyond comprehension. Is there anything we know about the universe that supports the former over the later?

The fine tuning of the universe and the complexity of life are not features of our universe that are beyond our comprehension. In fact, due to our comprehension and the known elements that determine those features being known is what demonstrate an intelligence behind them. So I would say that the features with its known elements fit much more cohesively within the ID scenario rather than your god-of-the-gaps accusation.

Good effort You have it backwards though. Evil is actually the normative standard and episodes of goodness are a violation of those standards which Ed allows only to pursue his goal of causing maximal suffering.

You must presuppose the God of the Bible to even hypothesize Ed.

OK so Adam was literally made out of dust and had no "parents", but he is also a hominid that appears in the middle of the evolution of hominids?
Why would this story be literal, Adam made from actual dust and Eve from his rib, but the 24 hour days as described in genesis are not literal and mean ages?

I don't know if he had "parents" or not but there were other people when Adam was created IMO. I believe that Eve was from his rib but like I said, I haven't a clue on how that occurred. We know that the earth and everything in it are from star dust. Hardly a stretch to say that life was created from the dust of the earth. IN fact, this could very well mean that we could find how life began by God using the natural processes He set up in the Laws of Physics to start life.

I have addressed this smokescreen before... To reiterate, consequences are justified in many cases and no I am getting really not in favour of the death penalty.
But you didn't address the issue. In this story God tells us ahead if time that he will be overriding Pharaoh's will for the purpose of demonstrating his glory. This turns out to mean, forcing Pharaoh to sin against God (against Pharaoh's will - otherwise God would not have had to say he was going to override it) and killing a multitude of Egyptians to prove how great God is.
Shifting the burden to me to answer a question I have already answered in no way adresses the moral bankruptcy of this act by God. You can claim they had it coming, that they are all sinners and deserve it, whatever, the pont remains that you are worshipping a God who forces a leader to sin and then punishes not only the leader but also the people who had no input into the matter. I get why this makes you uncomfortable but of your God exists, this is the reality. At the very best we can say that in this moment the killing of Egyptians was considered justified by your God to glorify himself.

Assertions gone wild!
Assertions:
1. Forcing Pharaoh to sin.
There is nothing to support your accusation that God forced Pharaoh to sin. IN fact, we know that Pharaoh's sin was well established and long enduring. Pharaoh ENSLAVED the Hebrew nation. He personally ordered all the babies born male to be thrown in the river. He worked them, killed them and abused them regularly without any mercy or kindness. You who claims how horrible the Hebrews were for enslaving others don't find this equally offensive? It is not a sin or evil to enslave, kill and abuse them with no consequence but it is ok for Pharaoh and he is as innocent and FORCED to sin?

2. This makes me uncomfortable.
Why do you think this makes me uncomfortable? You are the one that seems to think that God was immoral in His actions. My sensibilities are injured by the actions due to the moral compass that God has provided ingrained within me. We know that the actions of Pharaoh and even later the Hebrews when they are commanded to kill everything in the Canaanite city creates emotions and provides evidence of right and wrong. Where we differ in our positions is that you don't believe that God has a right to take life. You don't believe in God's sovereignty.

3. Egyptian people had no input.
The Egyptian people worshiped false gods which was a grave sin in itself. Secondly, the people had to kill all the males born of their slave women. They personally were ordered to do so and did.

4. God's glory.
You are correct that God's glory was involved but no quite like you are conveying. This nation worshiped false gods. God wanted two things from His actions in this story. The first, that He alone was God. Is this only God being jealous? No. It is very important for people to understand who God is. He is jealous however, and admits to be.
"Thou shalt not make up for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shalt not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God," He is saying that He will not tolerate one of His creation worshiping or bowing down to a God other than Himself. He will not tolerate the false god who did not create the universe and life in it. The word jealous is used to provoke understanding of His possession of the universe and the creative acts He performed. He wanted to provide solid evidence for both the Hebrews and the Egyptians that He was the One True God. Each plague was an assault on a false god that the Egyptians worshiped. Showing that He alone was God.

Again I understand why you are uncomfortable about all this.

I think you might be projecting your discomfort and distaste for the stories onto me. Like I said you do not believe God exists. If He did exist according to you then He would be immoral for taking the lives of babies. Yet, you realize that there are moral reasons that could be possible for those acts. You just believe that if God existed He could do something other than kill them. Yet, you lack information about what solutions are permissible in regard to God's plan and the world we live in. I believe that there was a good and moral reason for those actions which injures my sensibilities but my experience provides confirmation that there was a good and moral reason. Again, those sensibilities are a confirmation that we are created by a good and loving God that has ingrained within us the conscience that gives us a standard of right and wrong.

It is difficult to admit outright that you worship a God that kills children.

So you have a standard of morality that claims it is immoral to kill children. Yet, you claim there is no such thing as a standard of morality? You seem to think that morality has evolved to the state we have today, but we know that abortion is killing children every day, you don't agree with abortion but do claim that there are some reasons for abortion that are morally sound. You can see this even with our short sighted vision of circumstances. However, we do not share God's omniscience where we would know all the elements needed to determine whether or not God's actions were in fact morally sound. So no, while the actions injure my sensibilities due to my ingrained moral compass, I do not find it difficult to admit I worship the God that created life and has the wisdom and intelligence to know what is the best possible action in the circumstances that man has chosen for themselves.

So I get why you want to say that all kids go to heaven... But the Bible just doesn't support this. The verse you quoted can't reasonably be taken to mean that all children go to heaven. Jesus is talking to adults telling them that they should have the same solid and unquestioning, immature kind of faith that kids have. So first he is talking about children old enough to have enough understanding of the issues to be said to have faith.

Another assertion. There is no reason that you can cite that would show this conclusion is unreasonable. How does this passage tell us that the kids around were old enough to have faith?

At the time Jesus allegedly said these words there would have been other children if like age, with absolute fist in Bal and other gods so clearly Jesus is not offering a golden ticket to heaven for all kids in that verse.

What informs you of this?

Again I have to point out that not all the tribes of Christianity agree with you on this issue, which is why many of them baptise thier babies at the first available opportunity, so that if they die they can still go to heaven, whereas they would not have if the baptism hadn't happened yet.

Disagreements about doctrine is not a valid argument. That there are any denominations that agree means that the interpretation is one that millions of people agree upon.

This is interesting, are you saying that kids who are too young to have an understanding of good and evil shouldn't be held accountable and still get to go to heaven?

Do you believe that children can fully assess something so important as the destination of their souls? I don't believe that God holds children accountable until they can either accept or reject God.

You can call it righteous if you like but that doesn't make it less monstrous.

Again, you are acting as if morality is objective and that these acts are objectively morally wrong. If you do not believe that morals have objective standards of right and wrong, how do you determine that these acts are so wrong that they require an adjective of monstrous? You can assert that because the acts were of God, it makes this somehow much worse than if humans were the ones behind it but that seems somewhat inconsistent with an Omniscient God who actually does have all the information needed to determine whether or not an act would be morally sound.

The post you are missing over and over is that God has the power to change all this if our souls were the priority for him. He can nudge us hard enough that we will freely choose him. The fact that he doesn't shows that our souls are just not the top priority.

The issue is not in His hands but in the hands of each person. God clearly has said if someone really wants to know if He exists and asks to be shown and is willing to ACCEPT Him then they will be saved.

You said that not one created person will ever not deserve judgement but again this is the system God set up so this is still on him.

He also set up a easy fix, one that will take away all judgement and make way for an eternity of life with Him.

Finnaly I don't see where the justification is for that last claim that God provides a way for all people in all times. Prior to Jesus is was just for the Israelites and as we saw in Thessalonians there is an expiry date so there are people after that who will not be allowed heaven either (we have to assume there will be infants and such in these days as well... Tough luck for them)

No, you are mistaken. All people came from Noah and his family. They were all aware of Yahweh and what they needed to do. The oral traditions were set then.

You mean like a 10 hour family road trip when the snacks are gone and the air conditioning is broken? No thanks

I thought you said your wife was a Christian and your children attended a Christian school?

I guess this is another one of those assertions that are dependent on the Bible so I will leave that for another time.

All of it is dependent on the Bible.

You have asserted this is the case that it is a logical impossibility but there is just no way of justifying that. I can't prove it is possible either of course but it seems to me that in the absence of evidence we should in this case err on the side of believing that the omnipotent God of the universe could do it if he had a reason to.

I disagree, and the only reason you believe it is best to err on your side is because it is your side.

God predestined the elect. Period.
Everyone else that gets created are just the pawns on the board, meant to be discarded, they never were going to get a chance at salvation in the first place because they were not elected (chosen).

Your assertion in this case is not based on Scripture but on your opinion. I could cite numerable passages that show that is incorrect.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”

Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

OK so Pharaoh had a track record of being a jerk, I get it but God still made sure he would sin then punishes him for it. Can you imagine (in front of all your other kids) forcing one child to take an ice cream sandwich from the freezer and forcing him to eat it (despite him saying he doesn't want to cause he knows it is wrong) and then punishing him for doing so, just to show your other kids how awesomely powerful and glorious you are? This is exactly what God did,except the punishes killing humans.

See above.

If they choices and actions of a person are all predestined by God. And remember that predestination does not mean simply knowing ahead of time, it means that no matter what there is only one possible outcome chosen by God, how does anyone have free will?

How do you know this?

I was but you did the address the verses in that sermon that I quoted for you. I agree Jesus says that the entirety of the law can be summed up in those two commands but he also says that you are to follow every one of the laws and teach others to do likewise.

Please provide where Jesus tells the people that they should continue with the law of fabrics for instance.

Well the Bible is allegedly from God and it is, as far as I know, the only record of Yahweh communicating with us. Is there anything in that book that would make you think that God was in a loving, salvific, covenant relationship with anyone other that the Israelites?

That is like saying that because you give one child a gerbil but another one a horse that you don't love the one that got the gerbil.

I remember saying that exact thing as a believer The problem of course is that you are reading that into the text and it simply isn't there. The verse says that God was with them, but even though God was with them he couldn't defeat the iron chariots.

What in that verse prohibits this reading of the text?

How? Let's say that your family is the only family on earth for some reason and that all of you are true believers and all of you will be saved. Are you saying that in that context there is no true love of each other or of God?

How would we know?

The 2000 years is irrelevant, God set it all up ahead of time, knowing that those 2000 years of warnings would mostly be ingnored or misunderstood. That's like printing "may cause cancer" on the inside of pre-rolled cigarettes paper and then telling people you gave them fair warning. The point is God knew his warning would be insufficient to save most of the souls he created and did nothing to change this.

It is only insufficient if you chose to reject God. It is there for anyone to see.

But God doesn't simply know ahead of time. He actuated the universe, he created with action and intent all of it. It is all going according to the plan he set in motion. So yes he is responsible.

He is, and so are we. It is up to us to accept it or not.

At best you have support for proof of concept. You have evidence that God was not actually in favour of divorce but let them do it anyway. You do not have similar evidence for slavery and so the most natural reading of those verses is that God didn't mind slave relationships where humans could be beaten to near death without penalty.

That is simple assertion, we have an example of God allowing something He doesn't condone to be done in the case of divorce. This provided substantiation of God allowing behavior that He doesn't condone. Period. No reason to assume that divorce would be the only time this applies.

But more to the point. What happened to God being completely righteous and holy, incompatible with sin? Why did he give them super strict instructions on all manner of sins but allow them to go on sinning in marriage? This is inconsistent with the character of God that you have been arguing.

How does this show incompatibility? He gives all sort of strict instructions, the Ten Commandments which He knew that we could not live up to...that was the point. To show that no matter what we could not live up to God's standards and we needed salvation.

The point was not nor has it ever been the slave should be reimbursed in a fair way for being beaten to near death. The point is that it is wrong to treat a human being that way and your God allowed it.

God allows all sorts of things. He allows sin...here on earth. He allows our culture all ways of sin but that doesn't mean that He condones what we do as a culture. Why did He give the ones He did, it was a separation tactic to keep the Jewish people a separate and distinct people. They are the only group of people that still exist and that wasn't by accident.

Exactly! The only thing I can come up with is that like the tragedy of the passover, slavery somehow promotes God's glory.

You are doing it again. You are demonizing the action of God and dismissing the whole reason behind it all. Passover had more reason than the "glory" of God. It was an event to point towards Christ and the salvation He would complete. It was an event that provided justice to the Hebrews. In the plagues we see God warning Pharaoh what He would do and even told Him what to do to save the cattle for instance but Pharaoh refused.

You are right that it was a cultural way of life and completely eliminating it in those times would have caused harm and suffering as well. If there were not indentured slaves their would be no help for those who couldn't provide a living for their families for instance.

I actually think the more likely reason it is in there is that slavery is a super profitable thing for the owners and that the culture of the day wanted a moral justification for continuing to exploit other humans. So they put these words in God's mouth to lend legitimacy to the practice of slavery erythrocyte that they had already established and wanted to continue.

Of course you have nothing that provided justification to that assertion. You also didn't address what a servant would do with monetary compensation?

This seems so bizarre to me. You are arguing that instead of telling his people the most moral way to live (although he did in 613 other instances) that God was happy with helping them be a little less evil.
Thats like teaching your child to only steal the 1's 5's and 10's from the offering plate because stealing the 20's would be wrong.

Actually its not. Just like I said above, the damage that eliminating the slavery in terms of indentured servants is clear and the only other option for those from war was death.

This is very alarming to me. You are saying that even of you believed God was a moral monster, you would worship him because at least he has been good to you.

I feel that the good far far outweighs the bad for one thing. I also didn't claim that even if the acts were not justified in my mind or yours that I would believe God was a "moral monster". I see confirmation all around me which demonstrates the opposite. The universe is beautiful. The earth as well. We see wonderful acts of compassion and love even with people who have no reason to do so. We have compassion for all life and I feel this is following the mind of God and thinking God's thoughts after Him. The good is the standard and the evil while might be growing is still the abnormal and deviant coming from those who chose evil rather than good.

Also, what can't be ignored is that God could bring into existence a universe that is perfect for life, provides all that life needs to exist and allows us to understand it all is hardly someone that I want to tell, "I don't like your rules, your morality nor your behavior so I refuse to worship you". I mean that seems pretty idiotic, being holier than thou God is pretty arrogant not to mention stupid. If you wish to spend eternity in hell just to show God how strongly you feel about your own opinion of His morality, God will allow you. For me, I will gladly give God His due and live with His rules so that I can spend an eternity where there is no more evil, no more tears, no more pain, no more suffering and a new earth that is even more spectacular than the one we have now. Suffering for an eternity whether or not one believes it unjust is to me an empty act of defiance that only harms oneself.

Maybe it would be. Do you believe that we should ever stand up against an authority that is acting in horrendous ways? To bring up Hitler just for convenience... If you were in Nazi Germany and Hitler knows your family and treats you very well, but you also believed that Hitler was a monster for what he was doing to the Jews, would you worship him for taking care of you and yours, while he tortured millions of others?

This is a horrible analogy. The sun shines on even the wicked, the rain provides water for the evil, love still outweighs the bad for most everyone on earth. Like I said, if you want to stand up against God's authority, you are more than welcome to do so. However, does eternal suffering do anything other than bar you from the gift of eternal life? Does your defiance do anything whatsoever in righting the perceived wrong you claim of God? Even if God was wrong to make the rules He has made, are you going to do anything whatsoever in changing anything other than assuring by your rejection you go where He said you would go? Will it do anything other than confirm what He said when He said that "even knowing I was God they did not repent"?

I did apologize, and I did try to explain that I meant it only as a reminder of what the point was. In retrospect it was not well done on my part and your interpretation of it was totally justified. Again my apologies

Forget it, all is good between us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There could be a revelation coming, it's true. But it doesn't really deal with the issue that a whole bunch of people with attitudes similar to mine die and are damned because they never got the kind of sign we're talking about.

I regularly take the Lord's name in vain. I hear that one's a big deal, but it's hard to take it seriously without already believing there is a Lord. Does this mean I have chosen to be fooled by Satan?





Sorry, I got my lines mixed up. What I meant was, why is everything up until the end of line 26 talking about the Second coming but line 27 is suddenly talking about something completely different with no transition of any sort in between? You say 26 is about the Second coming whereas 27 refers to the Transfiguration, but there is nothing in either line that indicates a change in subject.



Could you quote me some examples where Jesus refers to something a few days away as if it were going to take place a long time in the future?



In Luke 21 Jesus says the same thing and you agree that there he is referring to Judgement Day. He is saying that this set of people will still be alive when he returns. So if his lack of knowledge about the exact date of his return means that Luke 9:27 can't be referring to the Return, then Luke 21:32 can't be referring to it either. But you agree that it is.



The oldest verified person was 122 years old. Someone born the same day as Israel would be 68. So in 56 years everyone who witnessed the birth of Israel will probably be dead. This means that there is a chance that I will still be alive to see that you are wrong about the return of Jesus! Also, is this interpretation just that, or is it one of those God-given thoughts?




So my idea is, as far as you are able to argue, a workable proposition. That's the point. God can and does override free will, so he could have done it that way and saved a whole bunch of souls that would otherwise be damned. You assume he has a good reason for damning all those souls, but you have only your faith that God is as good as you think he is. To me it doesn't comport with any definition of good or loving I know of.




Really? Even if you knew your child would be truly dead (and let's say damned) for believing a stupid thing that prevented them from taking an easy, life-saving solution, you still would maybe let them die? As I said before, a very disturbing attitude. Call me arrogant, but I just can't imagine letting someone I loved kill themselves by doing something so unbelievably stupid when I had the power to intervene. I don't care if I have the right to or not. I would rather my wife leave me and hate me than have her dead because she believed something stupid.


Ignore the faeries then. The lack of evidence for the existence of X cannot seriously be considered to support an inference that X existed but was wiped out, correct? If you disagree, please explain.



You're still talking about an entire nation that would have still been evil even if the young were transplanted to a different cultural context in which baby sacrifice was not okay. No such inevitably evil population has ever been shown to exist.



We were discussing the utility of faith versus science in approaching truth. With that in mind, here's the excerpt again: You believe that your god has a good reason for apparent atrocities even if you can't think of one that comports with external evidence. That's in contrast to science wherein conclusions must comport with evidence external to your own beliefs on the subject.




Jesus was fully man, correct? But he was also sinless. Thus being created does not exclude a sinless nature. If "I don't know" is the best response you have for this, then you aren't justified in asserting that a created being can't be sinless.



Putting it simply will not do. You are simply asserting your position, not supporting it. I would appreciate you actually addressing the argument I make here:

Your support for omniscience being necessary for sinlessness doesn't fit with your statement that God's sinlessness an attribute of his nature, not something that comes from his nature. If omniscience is a prerequisite for sinlessness, that means sinlessness is something God does by exerting his omniscience to avoid ever doing anything that would affect others in such a way that his actions could be sinful. Sinlessness is thus something that God does rather than something he is. If you disagree, please explain in detail why.

If you don't feel like it or can't, then you are not justified in asserting that sinlessness requires omniscience.



I don't think they are contradictory. I do however think that punishing your child forever for doing something you knew they were going to do from the beginning is antithetical to love. When you punish your child it is because you are trying to teach them something for their own good. Killing an entire planet and damning their souls irrevocably does not serve this purpose because those that were punished have no opportunity to change their behaviour. This is more like beating the s*** out of one child as a warning to your other child. Does that seem loving?


I asked if God knows what we will do before we begin to exist, for is he not omniscient? You answered that you didn't know. I took this to mean that you are unsure as to whether God knows everything we will do before we begin to exist. If he doesn't know this then definitionally he can't be omniscient. I always do my best to understand my interlocutor's position. If you think I have misrepresented it then please correct me.



No, none of that is my point. And you have not answered the question I have asked you many times now. I will restate my point and my question and hope that you have the courtesy to finally answer it.

My point with this baby-killing/free will thing is that God is willing to subvert free will to serve his purposes. You don't seem to agree that killing babies before they make their free will choice violates their free will. So...

If free will in this context is making a choice for or against God, why does it not violate free will to take that choice away?

If I were deciding who to vote in an election and I hadn't yet made a choice it would be a violation of my right to choose if one of the candidates were to cast my vote for me.






I don't think you've quite grasped what parsimony means. It doesn't mean "consistent with evidence", which is what you seem to be saying when you wrote that your conclusions are "very parsimonious with that evidence". Parsimony is a way of choosing between different options that are consistent with the evidence by choosing the option that relies on the fewest assumptions.

1. You have data that indicate plants were capable of photosynthesis in the Precambrian. This is not the same thing as evidence that these photosynthetic plants were or produced Precambrian angiosperms. You are assuming that this is the case.

2. We know that major extinction events occur. This is not the same thing as evidence that angiosperms evolved and went extinct in the Precambrian. You are assuming this happened.

3. You have asserted that because photosynthesising plants existed 700 million years ago that the entire suite of angiosperm traits could have evolved. You are assuming this actually did happen without any evidence that it happened.




Incorrect. I'm not claiming that there is no evidence to support the idea that angiosperms might have been present in the Precambrian. I agree it might have happened. My argument is that your conclusion that it did happen requires a number of assumptions that make it less parsimonious than the conclusion that angiosperms evolved only once. This mainstream conclusion is based on only one assumption, i.e. that angiosperms evolved roughly where their fossil record and molecular clocks agree they did. This assumption is supported by the consilience between the fossil record and molecular clocks. As far as I can tell your assumptions have no such support. You start with chemical evidence of photosynthetic plants and then add the above-listed assumptions to conclude that angiosperms existed in the Precambrian. Please feel free to list the assumptions I've missed.



All this supports the conclusion that land plants existed in the Precambrian. The existence of Precambrian angiosperms is theoretically possible but is founded on several assumptions that are not supported by anything other than this chemical evidence of Precambrian photosynthesis, a process which is not at all unique to angiosperms.



You haven't really, as I've argued above. You're "evidence" for Precambrian angiosperms is exactly the same as my "evidence" for Paleozoic horses.
Photosynthetic plants existed in the Precambrian, tetrapods existed in the Paleozoic.
Therefore it is possible that angiosperms evolved in the Precambrian and horses evolved in the Paleozoic. You tried to differentiate between these two positions by invoking an incomplete fossil record and large extinction events, but as I've shown these also apply to my Paleozoic horses. So again, what is the difference between the following two arguments:

Your angiosperm argument:

1. There is evidence of Precambrian plants
2. Therefore it is possible that angiosperms actually evolved first in the Precambrian rather than in the Mesozoic where their fossil record begins.

My horse argument:

1. There is evidence of Paleozoic tetrapods
2. Therefore it is possible that horses (tetrapods) actually evolved first in the Paleozoic rather than in the Cenozoic where their fossil record begins.



You are trying to support the accuracy of Genesis by arguing that Genesis is not saying that all sea creatures were created at once. You can't do this by simply asserting that it is talking about the Cambrian fauna. I'm asking you to explain why "every living thing" in the water should not be taken to mean "every living thing" in the water. All you've given me is the assertion that it should not be because it is referring to the Cambrian fauna. You haven't made any argument to support this interpretation.

So, to be perfectly clear, what is your argument for asserting that "every living thing" in the water should be taken to mean the Cambrian fauna and not every living thing in the water?



I'm asking for something in the scripture that supports your interpretation of the scripture. All you've given me so far is the assertion that Genesis is referring to the Cambrian fauna. I'm not refusing to consider your timeline, I'm asking you to provide evidence from scripture that the timeline you describe is actually the intent of the author.

Edit: If Genesis really is just giving a general overview of the order in which life arose, why do you think the author makes a point of saying there was a morning and an evening between each day?

Also, I'm still waiting on that article you mentioned that argues that angiosperms evolved twice.

AC did you see I responded to this post?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I leave that up to God. I really believe that if someone is really sincere then God will reveal Himself to them.

Respect for God is a very important element in the God and human relationship. I guess I would say that if you are sincere in respect to knowing the truth, if you are really sincere in worshiping God and in wanting him to give you this sign you have asked for; doesn't it seem somewhat counter intuitive to use God's name in a way that He feels is profane and disrespectful? Granted without knowing He does exist might seem like a good reason to go on and live as if He doesn't but not if you really want to know the truth.

But does my blasphemy mean that I have chosen to be deceived by Satan?

You might not understand the way ancient Greek was written and that might help to see why this is not an issue. Ancient Greek had no punctuation nor spaces between words and did not have paragraphs the way we do today. The fact that the transfiguration comes immediately after the saying of Jesus and that the next line even links them together by saying: Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves. 2And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.… Now this is a separate chapter in Matthew but that is not the case with Mark as Mark has it coming in the same chapter and running right after without pause which shows that I have support of this being more a case of the way it is written.

We know this goes together because Mark and Luke both have this same run down of the events:

1And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."2Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them;3and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them.…

I see what you're saying here but I don't see how you can make the distinction between the subject matter of the two lines. Why isn't lines 26 included? Also, could you link me to your source that documents this convention of greek writing you describe?

You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.29"Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.…

He dies but comes back to them not in the second coming but right after He is killed.

This doesn't satisfy my request. I was looking for a quote where Jesus talked of an imminent event as if it were a long way in the future.

Luke 21 is about the end times. Luke 9:27 is talking about the transfiguration.

So you say. But this statement doesn't address the point to which you are responding. I asked you to support the claim that "this generation" refers not to the people Jesus was actually talking to but rather a generation 2000 years in the future. You argued that because Jesus said he didn't know the exact date of his return then he couldn't possibly know that any of the disciples would still be alive. I pointed out that Jesus makes the same claim in Luke 21 which you agree is about the end times. Therefore your point about Jesus' lack of exact knowledge about the date of his return does not server as support for your interpretation of his words. So again, what scriptural support do you have for claiming that "This generation" refers to a generation more than 2000 years in the future rather than the people Jesus was talking to as any common sense reading would suggest?

Yes, you will be alive to see if I am right or wrong about the return of Jesus. Remember no one knows the day or hour but we after seeing the signs told about that we should know the season. It is generally believed that what we are seeing happening in the world today fits with those signs. It is both through interpretation and God's instruction.

So God has told you in words that the second coming will occur during the lifetime of this generation?

I have good reason to believe that there is choice and choice is important to God. He can override free will if He wishes but that doesn't mean He wishes to as a whole.

How does this address the point? My solution is workable as far as you are able to argue, but God chose not to do it that way. He instead chose a way that leads to far more damned souls. How is that loving?

I suppose that I would agree with that. But that isn't what we are talking about now are we?

That's what most of this conversation is about. You have indicated that you agree that for the sake of love you would be willing to save your child against their will rather than let them die and be damned for believing something stupid. So why is God not willing to do the same? The only possible answer I can see is that love for his creation and a desire to save them is not the most important factor in God's plan for us.

I'm not committed to the idea, so it isn't worth arguing about.

I disagree. This strikes me as a very important point. Do you believe that the lack of evidence for something can be regarded as evidence that it existed but was eliminated somehow? That strikes me as absurd, but if you have arguments to support this I would be interested in hearing them.

It was written that the children would lead Israel astray, so if God is truly all knowing, He would know this.

True. But "kill them all" doesn't really seem like the best solution an omnipotent, omniscient being could manage.

Yet, we know that even with external evidence to one's belief using Science we know that very often science is wrong, so while science is a method that points us to the truth it is wrong many times along the way.

We know science has been wrong in the past because it is self-correcting. Faith does not benefit from this self-correcting aspect; you have know way of knowing if you're approaching the truth or not.

Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. Now if you understand how that works you let me know. He is still God we are not so His existence as man/God does not provide proof that we as 100% human without the 100% God have the ability to be sinless.

But we do have proof that being 100% human does not negate the possibility of being sinless. So you as yet have no support for the assertion that a created being can't be sinless.

Omniscience is what God is. Can we be Omniscience? My point is that we are not God, we can't be God. Do you disagree that we are not God? Do you disagree that we can't be God. The only Being that is sinless by nature is God. We do not share the nature of God. Do you disagree that we do not share the nature of God? I don't think addressing a self evident fact is asserting anything. It is a fact that we are not God, do not share the nature of God and we can't ever become God. IF you disagree, please explain.

I have never tried to argue that we are God or possess his attributes, so this response lacks relevance. You are trying to support the assertion that omniscience is required for sinlessness. You haven't done this so far. I'll repost my argument for you to respond to more directly:
If omniscience is a prerequisite for sinlessness, that means sinlessness is something God does by exerting his omniscience to avoid ever doing anything that would affect others in such a way that his actions could be sinful. Sinlessness is thus something that God does rather than something he is. If you disagree, please explain in detail why.

You continue to ignore that all that is needed is to accept a gift of salvation. It is easy to understand, easy to do and very much rewarding when done.

Now you think the behavior of God is unloving and cruel. I disagree and justify it by my own personal experience of God, knowing that God says that He does what He does for the greatest good. I believe Him. Now I understand that you have nothing to go on but your own experience and you think you have no reason to believe Him. Do you think that if God really exists as is written in the Bible that there is no possible reason that makes these actions actually good like He claims there is?

There might be a reason, but I can't think of one and neither can you. All I have to go on are his actions, which neither of us can seem to reconcile with any definition of loving behaviour. He killed and damned an entire planet of souls after all. You simply have faith that because God has told you he is good, his actions really are good.

That's fair. It is a correct point to an inconsistency of my thoughts. I would have to say that yes, God would know what each created being would do before creating them. I don't think however, that knowing what one will do is the same as determining what they will do.

So we get back to the problem that god created the majority of souls ("few are they" that are saved and all that) to be evil and to be damned. How do you reconcile this with a loving character?

I do agree that God will manipulate the circumstances to use a person's will for His own purposes. In the case of the babies, He shortens their lives and in doing so diverts judgement for some and quicker reward for others.

So yes or no: Does killing a baby before it can make a free will choice of good or evil violate its free will? If not, why not?

The key here is could have. I really want you to think about what you are saying here. You are telling me that I am "asserting" that angiosperms were present. I am saying that the evidence that plants were present millions and millions of years prior to any fossil record for them. Now we know that science works upon less many times when researching different evidences to support a certain hypothesis. It was very recently that it was thought that no life could exist on early earth and that plant life could not have existed at all this early. Back ten years ago, there was no evidence whatsoever that plants existed during the Precambrian at all. Now we know they existed and there is nothing that would prohibit angiosperms from being present at that time. We know of organisms evolving more than once. We have evidence for organisms going extinct. Now tell me, knowing we have examples of all of this how my claiming that this could have possibly happened is unscientific and unsupported in evolutionary history?

At no point have I argued that your proposition is impossible. I am arguing that it is less parsimonious than the mainstream understanding of angiosperm evolution. Your position requires assuming that several things that could happen actually did happen. The mainstream view works from the fact that angiosperms appear in the fossil record at a certain time. This is inarguably more parsimonious because it relies on fewer assumptions about what happened. I doubt you would even be considering another option if Genesis weren't so clearly wrong about the timing of angiosperm appearance.

That simply is false. The origins of angiosperms and its controversy still exists today. The molecular and fossil evidence do not agree. I don't understand knowing you are very well versed on evolution why you are presenting your argument as if angiosperms origins is conclusive and no controversy exists as to when they did arise. We know that angiosperms appear very suddenly in the fossil record too. We also know that there have been I believe like five extinction events that we know of that have had great impact on the plant kingdom. So I think that your assertion that there is only one assumption that angiosperms evolved roughly where their fossil record exists and that the Molecular clocks agree is false. Pollen grains found in Switzerland in 2013 show them present 240 million years ago. Which then pushed back the origins even farther than that. So your one assumption is just that and has proven to be incorrect as well. My position is supported by very early plant life in the Precambrian due to oxygen levels, genetic studies that support plant life was likely responsible for the Cambrian explosion and the unknown origins of angiosperms all are more than assertion and do support the plausibility of a long period of plant evolution and the likelihood of that evolution giving rise to angiosperms from early plant life as has been proposed previously. Add to that, we know that extinction events have affected plant life at least five times and that features can and do evolve more than once independently. My position is well supported where as yours...fossil evidence/molecular clocks are known to be incorrect as to the origin of plant life and its molecular clocks.

This is mostly just a reiteration of why you believe your idea is possible. I don't think it merits any further discussion because I have already agreed that it is possible but not parsimonious. As for my position, I have very specifically said that molecular clocks and the fossil record agree in placing angiosperms in the Mesozoic era, which remains the case. I am not aware of any evidence for Paleozoic angiosperms. Do you have examples of this? So again, your position requires several assumptions that are not required by the mainstream view.

See above.

Insufficient. Nowhere above have you addressed the point being made here. The point is that your Precambrian angiosperms rely on the very same arguments as my Paleozoic horses. You have so far insisted that they are different without being able to actually describe the ways in which they differ. I'll repost the arguments so you can reposnd properly to this point:
Your angiosperm argument:

1. There is evidence of Precambrian plants
2. Therefore it is possible that angiosperms actually evolved first in the Precambrian rather than in the Mesozoic where their fossil record begins.

My horse argument:

1. There is evidence of Paleozoic tetrapods
2. Therefore it is possible that horses (tetrapods) actually evolved first in the Paleozoic rather than in the Cenozoic where their fossil record begins.

Please explain where these arguments differ.

What in the passages prohibits my interpretation?


The week not only describes God's work but how mankind is to work. Work six days a week and rest on the seventh.

The words. They describe "all living things" in the water for instance, not a subset of things existing in the Cambrian. You can add whatever extra stuff you want to those passages, which you have, but you can't claim they actually support your interpretation. If you disagree, please respond to the challenge I have issued multiple times now and provide evidence from scripture that the timeline you describe is actually the intent of the author.

I don't remember saying I had an article that claims angiosperms evolved twice. Perhaps if you know where that is in these monstrous posts you could quote it?

When I asked for evidence for that claim, you responded with this:

"I have an article somewhere that claims that very thing". I take it this statement was inaccurate.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But does my blasphemy mean that I have chosen to be deceived by Satan?

How can anyone enter a strong man’s house and steal his possessions, unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.…

But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Both of these show the degrees of Satan's influence and how that affects man. In the first, if one is not with God then one is against God. That in itself is the deceit of Satan. IN the second we see that even though Peter has been with God Satan still could influence him by thinking of the things of man rather than the things of God. So considering this, what do you think?

I see what you're saying here but I don't see how you can make the distinction between the subject matter of the two lines. Why isn't lines 26 included? Also, could you link me to your source that documents this convention of greek writing you describe?

Ok, if we know that Jesus claimed that only God the father knew the time of the second coming of Christ and the end of times, how do you reconcile that with what you are claiming?

http://greek-language.com/grklinguist/?p=657

This doesn't satisfy my request. I was looking for a quote where Jesus talked of an imminent event as if it were a long way in the future.

Matthew 24:1-25:46


1 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 5 “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 “You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, forthose things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 “But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

Here we see that He is talking about the destruction of the temple which happens a mere 30 years or so later while the rest are events that will happen and continue to happen up until the second coming of Christ.

So you say. But this statement doesn't address the point to which you are responding. I asked you to support the claim that "this generation" refers not to the people Jesus was actually talking to but rather a generation 2000 years in the future. You argued that because Jesus said he didn't know the exact date of his return then he couldn't possibly know that any of the disciples would still be alive. I pointed out that Jesus makes the same claim in Luke 21 which you agree is about the end times. Therefore your point about Jesus' lack of exact knowledge about the date of his return does not server as support for your interpretation of his words. So again, what scriptural support do you have for claiming that "This generation" refers to a generation more than 2000 years in the future rather than the people Jesus was talking to as any common sense reading would suggest?

This is a case of Spiritual understanding that seems to be nonsensical to unbelievers. There were many things that just could not have been possible in the times of Jesus and the second coming. The mark of the beast for instance and the two witnesses being seen by all the world for two.

So God has told you in words that the second coming will occur during the lifetime of this generation?

No, not in words. It has been a gradual working of the spirit. The second coming could not happen for instance until the Jews were back in Israel. That didn't happen until 1948, so after the dispensation and 1948 it was impossible for a generation to be the one until that occurred. Until there was a way to make sure that people could not buy or sell without the mark those generations were not the ones. Until there was a way to view the two witnesses by way of TV, those generations were not the ones. The world itself was not in ready for the one world government that will be present for the tribulation would not have been possible until a global unity existed between all nations which we see coming together today.

How does this address the point? My solution is workable as far as you are able to argue, but God chose not to do it that way. He instead chose a way that leads to far more damned souls. How is that loving?

I've prayed about that and it seems that while Jesus said: Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.

How many are many and how few is few. We know that even one person is valuable to Jesus:
Luke 15:2-7
2And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

3And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

4What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

5And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

6And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

7I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

So even one lost is too many lost and 99 to few.

That's what most of this conversation is about. You have indicated that you agree that for the sake of love you would be willing to save your child against their will rather than let them die and be damned for believing something stupid. So why is God not willing to do the same? The only possible answer I can see is that love for his creation and a desire to save them is not the most important factor in God's plan for us.

His desire to save them is not the most important factor, but for them to chose to spend an eternity with Him is.

I disagree. This strikes me as a very important point. Do you believe that the lack of evidence for something can be regarded as evidence that it existed but was eliminated somehow? That strikes me as absurd, but if you have arguments to support this I would be interested in hearing them.

I was talking about possibilities. If we are discussing an omniscient and omnipotent Being, we agree that being such would give that Being all possible scenarios and the power to bring them about do we not? If that Being has shown by a planet that is good to those living on it, by creating a creature that is capable of great love and devotion to others at even loss of life to insure others live, I believe that is reason enough to conclude that this Being is able to determine the best possible action to insure the best for the most of His creation.

True. But "kill them all" doesn't really seem like the best solution an omnipotent, omniscient being could manage.

This being said by a creation of a Being that is able to determine the best possible action to insure the best for the most of His creation.

We know science has been wrong in the past because it is self-correcting. Faith does not benefit from this self-correcting aspect; you have know way of knowing if you're approaching the truth or not.

What is truth? Does truth exist even if we don't discover it? Science has shown that what we believe as truth is only true until we discover something that disproves it. God is the foundational truth from which all others originate. Are there facts or truth that we have yet to discover? I think we both agree that yes, there are truths that we have yet to discover. Do we as mankind need to recognize these truths before they are truths or are they truths before we recognize them as such? I think that we probably would agree that if they are truths they exist even prior to us discovering them. Yet, truths exist and must cognitively exist to be truth. Truth is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Which means that an observer has to determine truth is in accordance with fact or reality. How if these truths exist are they determined to be in accordance with fact or reality before mankind discovers them? Truth exists due to God's cognitive determination of what is in accordance with fact and reality before mankind discovers them.

Now faith is a completely different facet of truth and reality. Its foundation like truth originates with God but unlike those truths that can be discovered by us as observers, it is a reality that is discovered by trusting God and the reality that HE has provided us. It is however self-correcting. God uses other Christians and different ways to illuminate some belief from faith that we have determined.

But we do have proof that being 100% human does not negate the possibility of being sinless. So you as yet have no support for the assertion that a created being can't be sinless.

Being 100% human and being also 100% God is not equivalent to only being 100% human. So we don't have any proof that without the God nature one can be sinless.

I have never tried to argue that we are God or possess his attributes, so this response lacks relevance. You are trying to support the assertion that omniscience is required for sinlessness. You haven't done this so far. I'll repost my argument for you to respond to more directly:
If omniscience is a prerequisite for sinlessness, that means sinlessness is something God does by exerting his omniscience to avoid ever doing anything that would affect others in such a way that his actions could be sinful. Sinlessness is thus something that God does rather than something he is. If you disagree, please explain in detail why.

Now you are misrepresenting what I am arguing. You are taking ONE facet of God's nature and excluding all the others to try to make your argument against it. Godness is the prerequisite for sinlessness. God with all His facets of being.

There might be a reason, but I can't think of one and neither can you. All I have to go on are his actions, which neither of us can seem to reconcile with any definition of loving behaviour. He killed and damned an entire planet of souls after all. You simply have faith that because God has told you he is good, his actions really are good.

Ok, lets see if we as limited created beings can come up with a scenario that would show that there are reasons that something that seems immoral and horrendous can be moral and loving.

Lets say that we find information that Russia has nuclear bombs that are aimed at every nation on earth (grant this is possible) and every man, woman and child outside of Russia will be annihilated if they are not stopped. So Canada strikes Russia killing every man, woman, child and beast in Russia. Now is Canada lacking in love towards Russia? Are they immoral for saving the rest of mankind by annihilating those babies and toddlers in Russia?

So we get back to the problem that god created the majority of souls ("few are they" that are saved and all that) to be evil and to be damned. How do you reconcile this with a loving character?

I find that it is loving to give created beings the ability to chose to co-exist and love God rather than being forced to. The way of salvation is easy and takes no effort for us to do. It is written out there for all to see and understand. Don't you agree?

So yes or no: Does killing a baby before it can make a free will choice of good or evil violate its free will? If not, why not?

If it has no active will to determine to accept or reject God how is it violating its free will? No, I do not believe it is violating its free will. Life is given and life is taken, if one has the length of life that will pass that age of being unable to accept or reject God then one is responsible for the outcome. If the length of life is that which comes before being able to accept or reject God then they are not responsible for the outcome.

At no point have I argued that your proposition is impossible. I am arguing that it is less parsimonious than the mainstream understanding of angiosperm evolution.

How can anything be more or less parsimonious than the mainstream understanding of angiosperm evolution when angiosperm evolution is lacking in understanding.

Your position requires assuming that several things that could happen actually did happen. The mainstream view works from the fact that angiosperms appear in the fossil record at a certain time. This is inarguably more parsimonious because it relies on fewer assumptions about what happened. I doubt you would even be considering another option if Genesis weren't so clearly wrong about the timing of angiosperm appearance.

It is well documented that the fossil record is not consistent with angiosperm evolution. They suddenly appear in the fossil record with an absence of any evidence for them 80 to 90 millions years prior to their appearance. It is hardly parsimonious to conclude that the fossil record gives any hint to their origins.

This is mostly just a reiteration of why you believe your idea is possible. I don't think it merits any further discussion because I have already agreed that it is possible but not parsimonious. As for my position, I have very specifically said that molecular clocks and the fossil record agree in placing angiosperms in the Mesozoic era, which remains the case. I am not aware of any evidence for Paleozoic angiosperms. Do you have examples of this? So again, your position requires several assumptions that are not required by the mainstream view.

There is a study I know of that claims that perhaps all ancestry of angiosperms originates as far back as the Paleozoic.

[ Paleobotany of Angiosperm Origins ]
JOHN M. MILLER, Ph.D.
University and Jepson HerbariaRoom 1001, Valley Life Sciences Building 2465University of California, BerkeleyBerkeley, California, USA 94720-2465

Regardless, there is no evidence prior to the sudden appearance that I am aware of that shows origins of angiosperms.

Insufficient. Nowhere above have you addressed the point being made here. The point is that your Precambrian angiosperms rely on the very same arguments as my Paleozoic horses. You have so far insisted that they are different without being able to actually describe the ways in which they differ. I'll repost the arguments so you can reposnd properly to this point:
Your angiosperm argument:

1. There is evidence of Precambrian plants
2. Therefore it is possible that angiosperms actually evolved first in the Precambrian rather than in the Mesozoic where their fossil record begins.

My horse argument:

1. There is evidence of Paleozoic tetrapods
2. Therefore it is possible that horses (tetrapods) actually evolved first in the Paleozoic rather than in the Cenozoic where their fossil record begins.

Please explain where these arguments differ.

First and foremost origins of angiosperms is not understood nor is there any evidence prior to their suddenly appearing in the fossil record of their origins. This is unlike the evolution of the horse where the horse doesn't just appear in the fossil record without any evidence prior to it.

The words. They describe "all living things" in the water for instance, not a subset of things existing in the Cambrian. You can add whatever extra stuff you want to those passages, which you have, but you can't claim they actually support your interpretation. If you disagree, please respond to the challenge I have issued multiple times now and provide evidence from scripture that the timeline you describe is actually the intent of the author.

Clearly the water of the Cambrian held everything living thing in the water. I don't understand why you feel this passage must include all living things "throughout time up to the present time? What informs you that this reading is more accurate than mine? We have the words of the Narrative and nothing more or nothing less. The narrative is very obviously a sequence of events that occur chronologically from the beginning to the present time. We know this because it says so. In the beginning... and it ends with mankind...present era. Now why if this is the case, would we conclude that the waters had to include everything that has ever lived and lives now?

When I asked for evidence for that claim, you responded with this:

"I have an article somewhere that claims that very thing". I take it this statement was inaccurate.

Could you provide where you got this quote?

 

[Athée]

Hey once, sorry for the long delay. I hope you and yours are doing well too.

The fine tuning of the universe and the complexity of life are not features of our universe that are beyond our comprehension.

I think we simply disagree here. Fine tuning is a probability argument and I am not aware of any way of determining that the universe we have is unlikely.
I do agree that life is complex but that is not evidence of design. Complexity is not the hallmark of design, in fact I would say simplicity is but in either case simply because something is complex does not mean it was intelligently designed.

You must presuppose the God of the Bible to even hypothesize Ed.

In a way this is true... But totally misses the point. The ed hypothesis in the specific way I have presented it to you, include Yahweh as the opposite force to ed, the one ed created and allows to do good so that people will wrongly worship Yahweh instead of Ed which leads them to even greater suffering.
So saying that the hypothesis assumes God is irrelevant, you still have not provided any data point or any example or even any thought experiment that would falsify the ed hypothesis.
I am looking forward to your next attempt though

We know that the earth and everything in it are from star dust. Hardly a stretch to say that life was created from the dust of the earth. IN fact, this could very well mean that we could find how life began by God using the natural processes He set up in the Laws of Physics to start life.

I'm pretty sure that there is an equivocation going on there. The "dust" of exploding stars is not the same as dry soil earth.
It also seems that you believe that any natural mechanism discovered will always fit with the God hypothesis because it could be the case that God made it that way... Fair enough but how do you explain the things in the Bible that are not consistent with science? I'm thinking of the global flood or the firmament for example to pick examples.

. Forcing Pharaoh to sin

Well if it is sinful to not do what God has commanded then...
And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.
Exodus 4:21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.4.21.ESV

God tells Moses to ask pharaoh to let the people go but makes sure pharaoh will not =forces pharaoh to sin. If you disagree please explain why.

This makes me uncomfortable.

Maybe I am projecting, my apologies.

My sensibilities are injured by the actions due to the moral compass that God has provided ingrained within me.

So if I understand you properly you are saying God has written his motality on your heart and when you see or read about things that violate those principles your sensibilities are injured. So when you read about God killing people your sensibilities are not injured because anything God does is by definition good. Is that correct?

Egyptian people had no input.
The Egyptian people worshiped false gods which was a grave sin in itself. Secondly, the people had to kill all the males born of their slave women. They personally were ordered to do so and did.

Well we k kw from exodus 1 that the midwives at least were in rebellion against the commands of pharaoh and that God gave them families as a result. So there were some people not on board with pharaoh. But the real poinnos that God is punishing the people for the decision of the leader (a decision God forced on him as we saw earlier). Imagine today that as a result of the supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage that God swooped down and killed every first born child in America. Same idea really. Of course you think it would be just and good because there could be a reason. The Robles is that all we have to go on, all we have to evaluate this God character are the actions he takes. You tell me that your very sense of what is good comes from God but then you agree that so much of what he does in no way correlates to what you would call good. You are forced to assume that somehow it is good even though on the face of it, it seems otherwise.

You are correct that God's glory was involved but no quite like you are conveying. This nation worshiped false gods. God wanted two things from His actions in this story. The first, that He alone was God. Is this only God being jealous?

OK so he is richeously jealous, that totally makes it OK to force someone to disobey you and then kill a whole bunch of firstborns (notice not just kids, firstborn sons would mean killing teens and adults too who were firstborn sons,so we can't even use the all kids go to heaven apogetic here because he flat out killed more than just kids, for a decision they didn't make).

There is no reason that you can cite that would show this conclusion is unreasonable. How does this passage tell us that the kids around were old enough to have faith?

He is saying you need to have faith like these children....
P1 there are children
P2 the children have faith
P3 faith is a conscious act
P4 there exist children old enough to have faith.
P5 other cultures also have children old enough to have faith
P6 these other children did not have faith Inness but in thier own gods.

Therefore either Jesus is saying it is OK to have faith in any God you choose and I will get you into heaven or as the verse actually says you need to have a faith that is similar in quality to that of a child if you want to get into heaven.

This verse simply can not mean all kids go to heaven.

What informs you of this?

Are you asking me how I know that predestination means predestination? We cited a long list of passages showing God predestined the elect and at least some events as well. So in light of this fact how can we be said to have free will.

Disagreements about doctrine is not a valid argument. That there are any denominations that agree means that the interpretation is one that millions of people agree upon.

It is fallacious to say that the number of people who hold a belief correlates to its truth. Even worse though all these denominations claim to be under the guidance of the holy spirit, communicating for them the truth of God's Word. How is it then that they disagree? Why are there denominations that baptize babies?

Do you believe that children can fully assess something so important as the destination of their souls? I don't believe that God holds children accountable until they can either accept or reject Go

Great point, so since Eve was essentially a child in her understanding and reasoning (especially before she had any knowledge of good and evil) do you think God doesn't hold her accountable for her choice because she didn't really have the sophistication required to accept or reject?

Again, you are acting as if morality is objective and that these acts are objectively morally wrong. If you do not believe that morals have objective standards of right and wrong, how do you determine that these acts are so wrong that they require an adjective of monstrous?

Well it seems here at least you are using objective the way most people use it but that confuses me since it doesn't align with your earlier definition about objective meaning something humans agree in but still changes. Cod you clarify?

The issue is not in His hands but in the hands of each person. God clearly has said if someone really wants to know if He exists and asks to be shown and is willing to ACCEPT Him then they will be saved.

But this is simply not true. God predestined those he would save and provided them with both the spiritual longings and the priper situation and events that would lead to them making the "choice" he had predestined for them. Because of our hearts no one will truly want to find God or ask to be shown unless God first makes a spiritual change he in them...we really don't have any agency in this. God saves those he predestined to save and everyone else goes to hell just like he planned for them.

He also set up a easy fix, one that will take away all judgement and make way for an eternity of life with Him.

An easy fix that he knew most people would reject and that only works for those he chose ahead of time to save.

No, you are mistaken. All people came from Noah and his family. They were all aware of Yahweh and what they needed to do. The oral traditions were set then.

Wait do you believe global flood story?

I thought you said your wife was a Christian and your children attended a Christian school?

She is, they do....?

All of it is dependent on the Bible.

Actually you have said a few times that your personal faith depending for most in your experiences and only secondarily on the Bible. But we will get to both of those I hope.

Your assertion in this case is not based on Scripture but on your opinion. I could cite numerable passages that show that is incorrect.

I agree that you can but that doesn't deal with all those other passages that we listed earlier that say something different. This is what is called an internal contradiction.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”

Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

1: yup God offers a choice and a real choice is incompatible with predestination... But God also says he predestined the elect etc..
2: yup he says he wants all people to be saved but then sets up a system that he knows ahead of time leads to most people going to hell. Do words speak louder than actions in this case?
3: Strongly suggest you don't use this verse in this way in the future. It clearly sets up a division of people those who will believe versus those who will not. So Jesus was sent only for the one group, not the other.

See abo

Please explain why the forces disobedience of ice cream eating is not analogous it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Please provide where Jesus tells the people that they should continue with the law of fabrics for instance.

I already did but here it is again.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17‭-‬19 ESV
http://bible.com/59/mat.5.17-19.ESV

The law about fabrics is part of the law and the prophets from v. 17, Jesus says to obey all of those laws and to teach other to do the same.

Case closed... Time to throw out all those cotton polyester blends and stone homosexuals!

That is like saying that because you give one child a gerbil but another one a horse that you don't love the one that got the gerbil.

No its like saying you love one and not the other because you give one a horse and let them live with you in the house where you feed them and care for them and the other you give a gerbil and then make them sleep outside in all weather and occasionally have the horse owning child beat them.
God only chose one people and let the rest go to hell (until Jesus at least)

What in that verse prohibits this reading of the text?

Because it doesn't say that.

And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19 ESV
http://bible.com/59/jdg.1.19.ESV
So God was with the tribe of Judah (doesn't say they disobeyed him and if they were in sin against God why would he be with them in the battle. In all other cases this means God is actively involved and working in behalf of his people to accomplish his goals). But then he, God, could not defeat the people on the plains... Why not? Because they had iron chariots.

Pretty clear.

How would we know

How would you know what? Was that a yes, that love you have for each other is true love. Or no, that love is not true love. Please explain.

It is only insufficient if you chose to reject God. It is there for anyone to see.

But most people don't see it your way and God knew this was how it would go.

That is simple assertion, we have an example of God allowing something He doesn't condone to be done in the case of divorce. This provided substantiation of God allowing behavior that He doesn't condone. Period. No reason to assume that divorce would be the only time this applies.

Right, as I said you have proof of concept I the example of divorce. It could be the case that slavery is a other such situation. The difference is that in the former case you have Jesus say outright that God doesn't approve of divorce and allowed it, in the latter there is no such proclamation. You are not justified in assuming that slavery is an example from the same set as divorce without any evidence. Maybe there are other things that fall into the category as you suggested but unless God actually says so on a specific topic you are just making it up because it aligns with modern morality.

How does this show incompatibility? He gives all sort of strict instructions, the Ten Commandments which He knew that we could not live up to...that was the point. To show that no matter what we could not live up to God's standards and we needed salvation

You don't see anything incompatible with being a perfectly holy being and telling your worshippers that it is OK to sin in a specific way because they just can't help themselves?

God allows all sorts of things. He allows sin...here on earth. He allows our culture all ways of sin but that doesn't mean that He condones what we do as a culture. Why did He give the ones He did, it was a separation tactic to keep the Jewish people a separate and distinct people. They are the only group of people that still exist and that wasn't by accident.

Israelites ore not the only people group that still exist...can you support that claim?

Passover had more reason than the "glory" of God. It was an event to point towards Christ and the salvation He would complete.

Well you want to read that into it obviously but just as obviously the verses about rhe passover do not mention Jesus or his future coming. The passover was meant to demonstrate God's glory, any other interpretation is isegesis.

Of course you have nothing that provided justification to that assertion. You also didn't address what a servant would do with monetary compensation?

Agreed it is not a fact, simply a hypothesis based on how I understand humanity. Was there something in that hypothesis that you see a flaw with?
I have exaplained why the compensation money is not relevant to the question we are investigating.

Actually its not. Just like I said above, the damage that eliminating the slavery in terms of indentured servants is clear and the only other option for those from war was death.

How does your unfounded assertion that slavery was god's only option provide an explanation for why God gave hundreds of specific commands but didn't include one about slavery if he actually thinks like you do that slavery is wrong?

However, does eternal suffering do anything other than bar you from the gift of eternal life? Does your defiance do anything whatsoever in righting the perceived wrong you claim of God?

My initial reaction to this was to feel like I would absolutely fight for what I see as right and good in the face of tyranny. But you might actually be right. If God existed and was so much more powerful I might just make a show of worshipping to protect myself and my family.
Pretty crappie way to live in my opinion but maybe the best choice if such a tyrant actually existed.

 

[Moral Orel]

Right, as I said you have proof of concept I the example of divorce. It could be the case that slavery is a other such situation. The difference is that in the former case you have Jesus say outright that God doesn't approve of divorce and allowed it, in the latter there is no such proclamation. You are not justified in assuming that slavery is an example from the same set as divorce without any evidence. Maybe there are other things that fall into the category as you suggested but unless God actually says so on a specific topic you are just making it up because it aligns with modern morality.

1 Timothy 6:2 says you can be a Christian and a slave owner, so it goes a little further than simply not mentioning it...

 

[Athée]

1 Timothy 6:2 says you can be a Christian and a slave owner, so it goes a little further than simply not mentioning it...

I would agree but I suspect the believer would say this is referring to a different form of slavery, namely, indentured servitude.

 

[Moral Orel]

I would agree but I suspect the believer would say this is referring to a different form of slavery, namely, indentured servitude.

There's nothing that says that though. And since this is NT, it's Roman times and traditions, not Jewish ones, and the Romans had real slaves as well. I'm sure early Christians sought to convert slave owners just as much as slaves.

Since we agree, I'm not really arguing with you over it, I just wanted to throw it out there as the verse directly conflicts with the idea of "allowable" sin that was in the OT but was all supposed to be done away with in the NT. If it's okay in the NT, it's okay now.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

How can anyone enter a strong man’s house and steal his possessions, unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.…

But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Both of these show the degrees of Satan's influence and how that affects man. In the first, if one is not with God then one is against God. That in itself is the deceit of Satan. IN the second we see that even though Peter has been with God Satan still could influence him by thinking of the things of man rather than the things of God. So considering this, what do you think?

I think that I don't see where this answers my question. Am I choosing to be be deceived by Satan, or is it just sort of happening?

Ok, if we know that Jesus claimed that only God the father knew the time of the second coming of Christ and the end of times, how do you reconcile that with what you are claiming?

http://greek-language.com/grklinguist/?p=657


This is a case of Spiritual understanding that seems to be nonsensical to unbelievers. There were many things that just could not have been possible in the times of Jesus and the second coming. The mark of the beast for instance and the two witnesses being seen by all the world for two.

You've missed the point here I think. The point is that in Luke 21 Jesus claims that at least some from this generation will witness his return. This refutes your argument that Jesus' lack of knowledge of the exact date of his return precludes the possibility that he could be referring to the second coming in Luke 9:27 for example.

I see what you mean about the Greek though. That said, the article you link does say that major changes in idea or subject are generally (but not always) broken by a blank space. The fact that Jesus's prophecy and the transfiguration are in separate chapters does not support your claim that they refer to the same thing. In fact the article you linked suggests that they are indeed referring to different things and that in Mark where they appear together it is simply an example of major ideas not being divided up as sometimes happened.

Matthew 24:1-25:46
1 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 5 “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. 6 “You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, forthose things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 “But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.

Here we see that He is talking about the destruction of the temple which happens a mere 30 years or so later while the rest are events that will happen and continue to happen up until the second coming of Christ.

This doesn't really fit. I don't think an event 30 years in the future can be considered imminent in any reasonable sense. Certainly not in the sense that something that was going to happen in six days is imminent. Do you have any better examples?

No, not in words. It has been a gradual working of the spirit. The second coming could not happen for instance until the Jews were back in Israel. That didn't happen until 1948, so after the dispensation and 1948 it was impossible for a generation to be the one until that occurred. Until there was a way to make sure that people could not buy or sell without the mark those generations were not the ones. Until there was a way to view the two witnesses by way of TV, those generations were not the ones. The world itself was not in ready for the one world government that will be present for the tribulation would not have been possible until a global unity existed between all nations which we see coming together today.

But you've still provided nothing form the scripture to indicate that when Jesus said "this generation" he was misleadingly referring not to the people in front of him but to a generation 2000 years in the future. What allows you to ignore the obvious common-sense reading of that passage?

I've prayed about that and it seems that while Jesus said: Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.

How many are many and how few is few. We know that even one person is valuable to Jesus:
Luke 15:2-7
2And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

3And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

4What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

5And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

6And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

7I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

So even one lost is too many lost and 99 to few.

That doesn't really address the issue. If Jesus feels that even one lost soul is too many, why does his plan involve most souls being created with the foreknowledge that they will be damned? How is it loving to create a bunch of souls you know in advance are not going to be able to avoid damnation?

His desire to save them is not the most important factor, but for them to chose to spend an eternity with Him is.

But that's not true. We know he is willing to monkey with free will when it suits his purposes. And you have repeatedly claimed that killing children before they can make a free will choice works just fine for God. So he is willing to subvert free will and also save souls without them choosing to be saved. So clearly neither saving his creations nor having them choose him are really the most important considerations.

I was talking about possibilities. If we are discussing an omniscient and omnipotent Being, we agree that being such would give that Being all possible scenarios and the power to bring them about do we not? If that Being has shown by a planet that is good to those living on it, by creating a creature that is capable of great love and devotion to others at even loss of life to insure others live, I believe that is reason enough to conclude that this Being is able to determine the best possible action to insure the best for the most of His creation.

We were discussing whether lack of evidence for something can be considered to support the idea that something existed but was eliminated. I say absolutely not. Do you agree or disagree?

This being said by a creation of a Being that is able to determine the best possible action to insure the best for the most of His creation.

Cop out. You're taking for granted that killing the entire planet was actually the best solution. But you can't actually make this action fit with any usable definition of "loving". "Kill them all" is a lazy solution, not an optimum one if one is interested in preserving one's beloved creations. Especially if one possesses limitless power.

What is truth? Does truth exist even if we don't discover it? Science has shown that what we believe as truth is only true until we discover something that disproves it. God is the foundational truth from which all others originate. Are there facts or truth that we have yet to discover? I think we both agree that yes, there are truths that we have yet to discover. Do we as mankind need to recognize these truths before they are truths or are they truths before we recognize them as such? I think that we probably would agree that if they are truths they exist even prior to us discovering them. Yet, truths exist and must cognitively exist to be truth. Truth is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Which means that an observer has to determine truth is in accordance with fact or reality. How if these truths exist are they determined to be in accordance with fact or reality before mankind discovers them? Truth exists due to God's cognitive determination of what is in accordance with fact and reality before mankind discovers them.

Now faith is a completely different facet of truth and reality. Its foundation like truth originates with God but unlike those truths that can be discovered by us as observers, it is a reality that is discovered by trusting God and the reality that HE has provided us. It is however self-correcting. God uses other Christians and different ways to illuminate some belief from faith that we have determined.

I would agree that truth is truth regardless of our awareness of it. I disagree when you start switch gears and say that truth exists because God makes it. In any case this doesn't really refute the point I made. Science is a self-correcting way of approaching our best understanding of the truth in a way that faith isn't. Faith can lead you in all manner of directions and you will never know if you are getting closer to the truth or not. This is evinced by the vast array of religions and the vast numbers of different beliefs within those religions. Everyone is convinced they're right and faith doesn't provide the means to show you or them otherwise.

Being 100% human and being also 100% God is not equivalent to only being 100% human. So we don't have any proof that without the God nature one can be sinless.
Now you are misrepresenting what I am arguing. You are taking ONE facet of God's nature and excluding all the others to try to make your argument against it. Godness is the prerequisite for sinlessness. God with all His facets of being.

But we do have proof that being 100% human does not preclude the possibility of also being sinless. You are the one asserting that a created being can't be sinless so you should be able to support this. You've also failed to support the assertion that omniscience is required for sinlessness. Now you're claiming that the whole divine package is necessary, again without anything but your own assertions.

Ok, lets see if we as limited created beings can come up with a scenario that would show that there are reasons that something that seems immoral and horrendous can be moral and loving.

Lets say that we find information that Russia has nuclear bombs that are aimed at every nation on earth (grant this is possible) and every man, woman and child outside of Russia will be annihilated if they are not stopped. So Canada strikes Russia killing every man, woman, child and beast in Russia. Now is Canada lacking in love towards Russia? Are they immoral for saving the rest of mankind by annihilating those babies and toddlers in Russia?

I think targeting Russia's nuclear installations would be better. But that doesn't really matter. God is omnipotent so the comparison doesn't work. In this scenario the best recourse we have is killing Russia whereas God can do anything at all. Killing the entire planet is not even close to the only option for such a being. Certainly not when we're expected to believe that God loves all his creations so darn much. Again, this strategy is like beating up three of your children so the fourth kid behaves.

I find that it is loving to give created beings the ability to chose to co-exist and love God rather than being forced to. The way of salvation is easy and takes no effort for us to do. It is written out there for all to see and understand. Don't you agree?

I don't agree. Clearly it's not that easy to see and understand because we know directly from Jesus that most won't be saved. And you haven't really answered the question. How do you reconcile this allegedly loving nature with a plan that involves the majority of souls being created with the foreknowledge that they will be damned? How is giving his creations a choice loving when he knows before they even exist that they will make the wrong choice? He has created most of humanity to suffer and be damned. How is that loving?

If it has no active will to determine to accept or reject God how is it violating its free will? No, I do not believe it is violating its free will. Life is given and life is taken, if one has the length of life that will pass that age of being unable to accept or reject God then one is responsible for the outcome. If the length of life is that which comes before being able to accept or reject God then they are not responsible for the outcome.

So if free will is about making the choice to accept or reject god, why doesn't taking that choice away violate free will?

How can anything be more or less parsimonious than the mainstream understanding of angiosperm evolution when angiosperm evolution is lacking in understanding.

Again, parsimony is about making as few assumptions as possible. Just because angiosperm evolution is not nailed down doesn't mean that every idea about how their evolutionary history is equally parsimonious. They could have evolved on another planet as a sentient organism but then an asteroid destroyed their race except for a few spores which were transported to Earth where they evolved into the angiosperms we know today. This could have happened, but it is nowhere near as parsimonious as the idea that angiosperms evolved on Earth in the Mesozoic. Understand? Just because we don't know exactly how it happened doesn't mean that your idea is as parsimonious as the mainstream idea.

It is well documented that the fossil record is not consistent with angiosperm evolution. They suddenly appear in the fossil record with an absence of any evidence for them 80 to 90 millions years prior to their appearance. It is hardly parsimonious to conclude that the fossil record gives any hint to their origins.

What does this even mean? Are you arguing that the fossil record is not consistent with angiosperms having evolved? You statement about parsimony is incorrect. It is much more parsimonious to conclude that angiosperms evolved in or near the Mesozoic (supported by the the fact that both molecular and fossil evidence places angiosperm origins in the Mesozoic) than to assume that simply because plants existed in the Precambrian that Angiosperms evolved then before going extinct for another 400 million years or so and then evolving again.

There is a study I know of that claims that perhaps all ancestry of angiosperms originates as far back as the Paleozoic.

[ Paleobotany of Angiosperm Origins ]
JOHN M. MILLER, Ph.D.
University and Jepson HerbariaRoom 1001, Valley Life Sciences Building 2465University of California, BerkeleyBerkeley, California, USA 94720-2465

Regardless, there is no evidence prior to the sudden appearance that I am aware of that shows origins of angiosperms.

Sorry, but this isn't very useful. Do you have anything from the body of this paper that supports the point you suggest it does?

In any case, the uncertainty surrounding angiosperm evolution doesn't really help your case as far as I can tell. Last I heard, you were arguing that angiosperms evolved in the Precambrian before any animals and then went extinct before evolving again. The exact details of the evolution angiosperms as we know them today doesn't have any bearing on that argument.

First and foremost origins of angiosperms is not understood nor is there any evidence prior to their suddenly appearing in the fossil record of their origins. This is unlike the evolution of the horse where the horse doesn't just appear in the fossil record without any evidence prior to it.

This doesn't address the similarities I highlighted. You are arguing that evidence of plants in the Precambrian suggests that angiosperms evolved in the Precambrian. I am arguing that evidence of tetrapods in the Paleozoic suggests that horses evolved in the Paleozoic. Why do you find the one convincing and the other not?

Clearly the water of the Cambrian held everything living thing in the water. I don't understand why you feel this passage must include all living things "throughout time up to the present time? What informs you that this reading is more accurate than mine? We have the words of the Narrative and nothing more or nothing less. The narrative is very obviously a sequence of events that occur chronologically from the beginning to the present time. We know this because it says so. In the beginning... and it ends with mankind...present era. Now why if this is the case, would we conclude that the waters had to include everything that has ever lived and lives now?

It is not at all obvious that it is a chronological sequence from the "beginning to the present time". Where do you get the idea that it refers to a sequence up to the present time? I am arguing that the biblical author was not trying to convey what you claim he is. The words say that "all living things" in the water were created at the same time. Where in the text do you find support for the idea that the biblical author was really talking only about the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian (which is not actually all the phyla currently in existence) rather than "all living things" in the water which is what he actually wrote? My interpretation is based on the actual words of Genesis. Yours is based on assuming the author was saying something besides what is actually written.

Could you provide where you got this quote?

Here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey once, sorry for the long delay. I hope you and yours are doing well too.

Seems like we are both having time issues.

I think we simply disagree here. Fine tuning is a probability argument and I am not aware of any way of determining that the universe we have is unlikely.
I do agree that life is complex but that is not evidence of design. Complexity is not the hallmark of design, in fact I would say simplicity is but in either case simply because something is complex does not mean it was intelligently designed.

In a sense I would agree that probability has some to do with it. However, when a few parameters were found to be so necessary for the universe to exist and life to exist on it, it was a question of whether or not chance could have been involved. Now with over 50 parameters being discovered it stretches the question of probability to almost nonsensical dimensions.

Complexity on its own is not the hallmark of design. Even if we take the starting order for even the simple we find evidence of design.

In a way this is true... But totally misses the point. The ed hypothesis in the specific way I have presented it to you, include Yahweh as the opposite force to ed, the one ed created and allows to do good so that people will wrongly worship Yahweh instead of Ed which leads them to even greater suffering.
So saying that the hypothesis assumes God is irrelevant, you still have not provided any data point or any example or even any thought experiment that would falsify the ed hypothesis.
I am looking forward to your next attempt though

I have to wonder, if Ed is as is Yahweh; omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent then we arrive at a contradiction with Ed. If your god Ed has a full knowledge of goodness, a total understanding of moral law how would it be logical to will evil? Willing evil having the full knowledge of goodness is rooted in a contradiction.

I'm pretty sure that there is an equivocation going on there. The "dust" of exploding stars is not the same as dry soil earth.
It also seems that you believe that any natural mechanism discovered will always fit with the God hypothesis because it could be the case that God made it that way... Fair enough but how do you explain the things in the Bible that are not consistent with science? I'm thinking of the global flood or the firmament for example to pick examples.

I don't have a working knowledgeable position in geology. I do know the biases that are present in the sciences and how those biases can affect interpretation of evidence. So considering biases do exist that affect interpretation, that new discoveries change information available and the solid agreement of so many elements in regard to the Bible that I conclude that science most likely hasn't caught up yet.

Well if it is sinful to not do what God has commanded then...
And the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.
Exodus 4:21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.4.21.ESV

God tells Moses to ask pharaoh to let the people go but makes sure pharaoh will not =forces pharaoh to sin. If you disagree please explain why.

I have. You disagree, but you haven't provided any substantiation to your position. Pharaoh sinned repeatedly. He was not forced to sin. Like I said earlier, he crossed the line and went from sinning of his own free will to paying for his sin as a punishment. We are all free to do our will but when we die or receive our punishment that is the consequence to our sin. God pronounced judgement against Pharaoh. There are many times in the Bible that the act of sin was immediately punished and judgement passed without the person dying.

I also note that you ignored where I presented Pharaoh's sin and asked you why you felt he was forced to sin when it is evident that he did much more evil than did the Hebrews which you have claimed is horrendous but you seem to feel he was mistreated in some way?

Maybe I am projecting, my apologies.

It happens.

So if I understand you properly you are saying God has written his motality on your heart and when you see or read about things that violate those principles your sensibilities are injured. So when you read about God killing people your sensibilities are not injured because anything God does is by definition good. Is that correct?

No, because God is infinitely good and has an infinitely good reason for taking life of some for the best possible good for the whole.

Well we k kw from exodus 1 that the midwives at least were in rebellion against the commands of pharaoh and that God gave them families as a result. So there were some people not on board with pharaoh. But the real poinnos that God is punishing the people for the decision of the leader (a decision God forced on him as we saw earlier). Imagine today that as a result of the supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage that God swooped down and killed every first born child in America. Same idea really. Of course you think it would be just and good because there could be a reason. The Robles is that all we have to go on, all we have to evaluate this God character are the actions he takes. You tell me that your very sense of what is good comes from God but then you agree that so much of what he does in no way correlates to what you would call good. You are forced to assume that somehow it is good even though on the face of it, it seems otherwise.

For those that did good were rewarded. We also know that some midwives must have still been killing males because as the passage moves on, we see that Moses needed to be hid for 3 months and could not be hid any longer. So some were killing them.

It is not the same idea really. God gave the people of Egypt what they had given the Hebrews. The Egyptian people were killing the first born of the Hebrews. Now if you said, that we as a people are killing children and so God could come and kill our children then yes, same idea. Just like what he did for the midwives that didn't kill the firstborn, God did not punish them but rewarded them; God would do the same I believe for those who are against abortion and actively pray against it. For those that in their heart and mind find no issue with killing babies they could be punished as well by God taking their babies.

OK so he is richeously jealous, that totally makes it OK to force someone to disobey you and then kill a whole bunch of firstborns (notice not just kids, firstborn sons would mean killing teens and adults too who were firstborn sons,so we can't even use the all kids go to heaven apogetic here because he flat out killed more than just kids, for a decision they didn't make).

I have to ask once again since you didn't respond, why do you claim you don't believe there is objective morality and argue as if it exists?

They already disobeyed and they already killed the first born of the Hebrews. And yes, there would have been older children and adults killed. There was a way out for even the Egyptians, they could put blood on their doors.

He is saying you need to have faith like these children....
P1 there are children
P2 the children have faith
P3 faith is a conscious act
P4 there exist children old enough to have faith.
P5 other cultures also have children old enough to have faith
P6 these other children did not have faith Inness but in thier own gods.

Therefore either Jesus is saying it is OK to have faith in any God you choose and I will get you into heaven or as the verse actually says you need to have a faith that is similar in quality to that of a child if you want to get into heaven.

This verse simply can not mean all kids go to heaven.

Please provide the Bible you are getting this from, It doesn't say "faith" in any of the versions I've found.

Are you asking me how I know that predestination means predestination? We cited a long list of passages showing God predestined the elect and at least some events as well. So in light of this fact how can we be said to have free will.

I know we have passages that support predestination but others that support free will. I think both are accurate with how God has determined the workings of faith.

It is fallacious to say that the number of people who hold a belief correlates to its truth. Even worse though all these denominations claim to be under the guidance of the holy spirit, communicating for them the truth of God's Word. How is it then that they disagree? Why are there denominations that baptize babies?

You were claiming that since "all" denominations didn't hold that belief then it wasn't a valid point of Christian theology but there is scripture to show it is valid and that a high majority of Christians understand it to be. The numbers were not to claim it is true, but to show your point was incorrect.

Great point, so since Eve was essentially a child in her understanding and reasoning (especially before she had any knowledge of good and evil) do you think God doesn't hold her accountable for her choice because she didn't really have the sophistication required to accept or reject?

That is an assumption at best. You have no idea what information or knowledge she held. She had a personal relationship with God, she knew He existed and that He created Adam and herself. You would have to show something that would provide a reasonable argument for her being unable to understand her actions and the consequences of disobeying. God had specifically told her not to eat the apple. She had the knowledge that she was prohibited to eat the fruit from that specific tree. She had the knowledge and understanding that if she ate the fruit she would be like God, so she had motivation with knowledge.

Well it seems here at least you are using objective the way most people use it but that confuses me since it doesn't align with your earlier definition about objective meaning something humans agree in but still changes. Cod you clarify?

The objective standard is not what changes, the way someone will twist it to suit their desires is what changes. Murder is an objective standard that never changes. Lying is an objective standard. Rape is an objective standard. Those standards are always intact but as humans we twist them to allow deviations from them. It is not murder if...It is not lying if...it is not rape if....

But this is simply not true. God predestined those he would save and provided them with both the spiritual longings and the priper situation and events that would lead to them making the "choice" he had predestined for them. Because of our hearts no one will truly want to find God or ask to be shown unless God first makes a spiritual change he in them...we really don't have any agency in this. God saves those he predestined to save and everyone else goes to hell just like he planned for them.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
These show we do have a choice.

An easy fix that he knew most people would reject and that only works for those he chose ahead of time to save.

See above.

Wait do you believe global flood story?

Yeah. I do by faith. I understand there is some evidence that supports it but I am not knowledgeable enough to debate it.

She is, they do....?

Ok? I'm lost. You seem to be saying that your family would be with you on this "family vacation without air conditioning etc. If your wife and children are Christian and are saved you will be traveling alone. My point was that I hoped you would be going where they are going.

Actually you have said a few times that your personal faith depending for most in your experiences and only secondarily on the Bible. But we will get to both of those I hope.

True but Christian theology rests completely on the Bible.

I agree that you can but that doesn't deal with all those other passages that we listed earlier that say something different. This is what is called an internal contradiction.

That is what I call both apply.

1: yup God offers a choice and a real choice is incompatible with predestination... But God also says he predestined the elect etc..

Who are the elect?

2: yup he says he wants all people to be saved but then sets up a system that he knows ahead of time leads to most people going to hell. Do words speak louder than actions in this case?

Like my answer before, even 99 out of 100 is to few.

3: Strongly suggest you don't use this verse in this way in the future. It clearly sets up a division of people those who will believe versus those who will not. So Jesus was sent only for the one group, not the other.

Jesus was sent for all and all are saved if they accept His salvation.

Please explain why the forces disobedience of ice cream eating is not analogous it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

He didn't force him to sin. He cemented his position. HE already sinned. He was going to sin again (God knew that) God just wanted to prolong the sinning so that all the actions against Pharaoh would be accomplished.

I already did but here it is again.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:17‭-‬19 ESV
http://bible.com/59/mat.5.17-19.ESV

The law about fabrics is part of the law and the prophets from v. 17, Jesus says to obey all of those laws and to teach other to do the same.

Case closed... Time to throw out all those cotton polyester blends and stone homosexuals!

I am beginning to understand that your time as a Christian was not one of study according to Christian theology. It is very important here to understand that we are not under the law as Christians. Until the Jews accept Christ they are under the law. We are not. Christ's death and resurrection put to death the law but Jews did not accept Christ.

• Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace."
• Gal. 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law."

• Rom. 2:12, "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law," (ἐν νόμῳ, en nomo, literally "in law").
• Gal. 3:23, "But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally "under law").
• Gal. 4:5, "in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally "under law"). Courtesy of CARM.

No its like saying you love one and not the other because you give one a horse and let them live with you in the house where you feed them and care for them and the other you give a gerbil and then make them sleep outside in all weather and occasionally have the horse owning child beat them.
God only chose one people and let the rest go to hell (until Jesus at least)

That is simply not true. God choose Noah and His family and the descendants of Noah were who these people were. They were rejecting the God that saved their lines from death.

Because it doesn't say that.

And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19 ESV
http://bible.com/59/jdg.1.19.ESV
So God was with the tribe of Judah (doesn't say they disobeyed him and if they were in sin against God why would he be with them in the battle. In all other cases this means God is actively involved and working in behalf of his people to accomplish his goals). But then he, God, could not defeat the people on the plains... Why not? Because they had iron chariots.

Pretty clear.

Judges chapter 2:1-3 says:

Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ”

So we see that it isn't a guarantee, when they don't obey His voice.

How would you know what? Was that a yes, that love you have for each other is true love. Or no, that love is not true love. Please explain.

I said, how would you know if the love you have for each other is true love? What would inform you of that if there was nothing else but what you had?

But most people don't see it your way and God knew this was how it would go.

Like I showed you earlier, the majority of people born will live in heaven. If the majority of people have either been saved due to age or faith already so far. You would have to show that God could allow for free choice without compromising that decision. God provides a balance of evidence. He will give evidence but there will always be a way to explain it away if the person wishes to. Just like you. You were a Christian but you decided the evidence wasn't sufficient for you. I look at the evidence and it is overwhelming. We are looking at the same evidence but see it differently. Do you think God has forced you not to see it?

Right, as I said you have proof of concept I the example of divorce. It could be the case that slavery is a other such situation. The difference is that in the former case you have Jesus say outright that God doesn't approve of divorce and allowed it, in the latter there is no such proclamation. You are not justified in assuming that slavery is an example from the same set as divorce without any evidence. Maybe there are other things that fall into the category as you suggested but unless God actually says so on a specific topic you are just making it up because it aligns with modern morality.

We know that the drive behind freeing the slaves two times in history came about by people through the Bible realized that keeping slaves was not what was intended and that slaves and free men were equal in the eyes of the Lord.

You don't see anything incompatible with being a perfectly holy being and telling your worshippers that it is OK to sin in a specific way because they just can't help themselves?

I see nothing wrong with God working with people to bring about moral change. Society of the day could not have eliminated the slavery system all together. However, with the instructions given...kidnapping and enslaving people was wrong but indentured servants and slaves created by war were more human than the alternatives.

Israelites ore not the only people group that still exist...can you support that claim?

Do you know of any Canaanites or Amalekites? I don't know of any distinct group from Old Testament times that has remained unified and completely separate from other nationalities, do you?

Well you want to read that into it obviously but just as obviously the verses about rhe passover do not mention Jesus or his future coming. The passover was meant to demonstrate God's glory, any other interpretation is isegesis.

Do you mean Exegesis? That would be true if it were not a main interpretation in Christian theology, even Jews for Jesus recognize it.
http://jewsforjesus.org/for-congregations/programs/cip

Agreed it is not a fact, simply a hypothesis based on how I understand humanity. Was there something in that hypothesis that you see a flaw with?

For one thing it is contradicting your argument, which is that God condones slavery. Is it God or the Hebrews that are at fault. Which one would you like to attribute this to?

I have exaplained why the compensation money is not relevant to the question we are investigating.

I must of missed that.

How does your unfounded assertion that slavery was god's only option provide an explanation for why God gave hundreds of specific commands but didn't include one about slavery if he actually thinks like you do that slavery is wrong?

You must of missed that. Like I said earlier, there was no welfare or churches or any other organization that would be accessible for those who could not take care of their families. The ravages of war left no other alternative to slaves other than the marrying of the women making them family which was done and you feel that was wrong too. If God had said take no slaves no matter what then what would they have done? What would be your solution? What would you think God should have done?

My initial reaction to this was to feel like I would absolutely fight for what I see as right and good in the face of tyranny. But you might actually be right. If God existed and was so much more powerful I might just make a show of worshipping to protect myself and my family.
Pretty crappie way to live in my opinion but maybe the best choice if such a tyrant actually existed.

It is your conclusion that He is a tyrant and yet you have no objective moral directive to use to make that claim according to your view on morality. First of all, you have claimed that you understand that some actions that appear immoral may be moral due to the overall welfare of the majority. So we can from this understand that God could take actions that appear immoral but may be moral for the welfare of the majority. If I can show even one plausible case of an act of immorality for a moral reason and you have said as much with your abortion example, that makes your accusation of God being evil or immoral for His actions unsupported. You would have to know the mind of God and His motivations to know that there was no moral reason for His actions.

 

[Athée]

In a sense I would agree that probability has some to do with it. However, when a few parameters were found to be so necessary for the universe to exist and life to exist on it, it was a question of whether or not chance could have been involved. Now with over 50 parameters being discovered it stretches the question of probability to almost nonsensical dimensions.

How do you know that the probability of these parameters is not 1.0?

Complexity on its own is not the hallmark of design. Even if we take the starting order for even the simple we find evidence of design.

So how do we identify design in your view?

I have to wonder, if Ed is as is Yahweh; omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent then we arrive at a contradiction with Ed. If your god Ed has a full knowledge of goodness, a total understanding of moral law how would it be logical to will evil? Willing evil having the full knowledge of goodness is rooted in a contradiction.

Again a good effort. So there are two problems with your position here. First I don't see any logical contradiction between having knowledge of good and willing evil and second there is no difference that I can see between Ed having full knowledge of good and willing evil and Yahweh having full knowledge of evil and willing good. Why would one be a contradiction and not the other?

I don't have a working knowledgeable position in geology. I do know the biases that are present in the sciences and how those biases can affect interpretation of evidence. So considering biases do exist that affect interpretation, that new discoveries change information available and the solid agreement of so many elements in regard to the Bible that I conclude that science most likely hasn't caught up yet.

So in summary you think that all the scientists who believe that the global flood never happened or that the firmament doesn't exist surrounding the earth are so biased that they are misinterpreting all the data? And that future (presumably less biased) scientists will be forced by the evidence to eventually admit that all the things in the Bible are true?

Pharaoh sinned repeatedly. He was not forced to sin.

You are making a logical error here. The fact that Pharaoh has sinned in the past has no relevance to the specific instance where God makes him sin by hardening his heart as described in the verses I cited. I agree (within your worldview) that Pharaoh has previously sinned against God but it simply does not matter. I agree that given the description in the Bible that after these events pharaoh would likely sin again. Again this is irrelevant. We are discussing a signal instance in which Pharaoh's free will choice was to obey God, but then God overrides that free will and forces him to do something different... And then punishes not only Pharaoh but also all the Egyptians who didn't have anything to do with this event.

I also note that you ignored where I presented Pharaoh's sin and asked you why you felt he was forced to sin when it is evident that he did much more evil than did the Hebrews which you have claimed is horrendous but you seem to feel he was mistreated in some way?

I feel that he was forced to sin because that is what the Bible says. I agree that it was not out of character for him to sin but in the instance the Bible is describing he was planning to obey God and was forced not to.
That aside I would say that I do not agree with Pharaoh's morality, specifically the keeping of slaves. That said, him being a generally horrible person does not mean that he wasn't also mistreated in the specific instance under discussion.

No, because God is infinitely good and has an infinitely good reason for taking life of some for the best possible good for the whole.

I worded the quest as a negative and then asked you for an affirmation.... Sorry.
To be clear. You are saying that there is no possible act that God could do that would cause your sensibilities to be offended because he is good and will have some good reason for doing it.

You are also saying that the acts God has committed (in your worldview) in the past likewise do not offend your sensibilities, such as drownjng 99.99...percent of the souls made in his image, or devastating earthquakes etc.

Did I get that right?

We also know that some midwives must have still been killing males because as the passage moves on, we see that Moses needed to be hid for 3 months and could not be hid any longer. So some were killing them.

Well actually we don't know that midwives must have been doing killing, we can actually only say that within the context of the story that there was a danger to Moses' life and so he had to be whisked away.

It is not the same idea really. God gave the people of Egypt what they had given the Hebrews. The Egyptian people were killing the first born of the Hebrews.

This is flat out false. God killed the firstborn because Pharaoh's "choice". Even if it were the case that the killing of firstborns was in retribution for the Egyptians killing Hebrews (and it isn't) it still doesn't make sense unless you are arguing that every single non Hebrew family was involved in the killing of the Hebrew children, which is pretty absurd.

God would do the same I believe for those who are against abortion and actively pray against it. For those that in their heart and mind find no issue with killing babies they could be punished as well by God taking their babies.

In light of this, does it worry you that you are on record as saying that abortion is acceptable in some instances?

I have to ask once again since you didn't respond, why do you claim you don't believe there is objective morality and argue as if it exi

I don't believe that objective morals exist, I believe that in any particular situation there exists a gradient of moral choices that are context dependant and generally based on the principle of harm (which you have yet to show is problematic). Within a given situation we could say that there is an objectively correct decision (in reference to harm) but this is not the same as saying that objective morals exist.

They already disobeyed and they already killed the first born of the Hebrews. And yes, there would have been older children and adults killed. There was a way out for even the Egyptians, they could put blood on their doors.

Please justify these statements.
1) All the Egyptians who had firstborns killed by God, had previously killed Hebrew firstborns.
2) Egyptians could put blood on the doors to avoid gods wrath.

Please provide the Bible you are getting this from, It doesn't say "faith" in any of the versions I've found.

You are correct, it says to become humble like these children, who believe in Jesus. I was responding to your statement that we need to have faith like children. If you no longer hold that position in light of re-reading the source text that is fine
The point at issue though is that children don't automatically go to heaven.
You have said that because of Eve we all inherit a sin nature, but it is worse than that, we actually inherit sin from our ancestors. The Bible describes cases where this sin of the parent is visited on subsequent generations who are held accountable for it. The Bible says we come for from the womb sinning, it says there is not one (without specifying age) that has not sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Yes Jesus loved these children, because they were believers and he liked thier humility but this verse doesn't prove as you wanted it to that all children go to heaven.

I know we have passages that support predestination but others that support free will. I think both are accurate with how God has determined the workings of faith.

Please explain how God predestined my choices and how I also have free will. Please refer that predestination doesn't mean "had knowledge of ahead of time" it means actually insuring that something will happen, it means setting the future, determining fate.etc.
Good luck

You were claiming that since "all" denominations didn't hold that belief then it wasn't a valid point of Christian theology but there is scripture to show it is valid and that a high majority of Christians understand it to be. The numbers were not to claim it is true, but to show your point was incorrect.

Actually I wasn't claiming that since all Christians don't agree that it is false. It is a problem to be sure though, how do all these Christians who are all having the scriptures opened for them by the holy spirit get such conflicting messages from it?
If you think scripture supports the idea that all children get into heaven, please cite those verses and we will look into it.
Quick side question... Who do you define as a Christian?

That is an assumption at best. You have no idea what information or knowledge she held. She had a personal relationship with God, she knew He existed and that He created Adam and herself. You would have to show something that would provide a reasonable argument for her being unable to understand her actions and the consequences of disobeying.

I agree that the text doesn't explicitly say that but you are incorrect that we have no idea about what information and knowledge she had (according to the story). As you say she had the information that God had told her not to eat this fruit. We also know that she did not have knowledge of good and evil. So to recap the Eve knows God exists and that he has told her not to do something. The knowledge that it is good to obey God and evil to disobey God CAN NOT be part of that knowledge since she has not yet eaten the fruit. Since moral knowledge in your view is knowledge about good and evil Eve can not be said to be making an immoral choice. I would argue that she is very much like a child. She knows the parent said don't do this, but she doesn't know why or even that it would be wrong to do it, or even that it would be sinful to disobey the parent. So I think the comparison is a good one. How then is it justifiable to hold Eve accountable?

The objective standard is not what changes, the way someone will twist it to suit their desires is what changes. Murder is an objective standard that never changes. Lying is an objective standard. Rape is an objective standard. Those standards are always intact but as humans we twist them to allow deviations from them. It is not murder if...It is not lying if...it is not rape if....

Great thanks for clearing that up. Could you define those terms for me though. I have my own definitions but I am worried now that maybe mine are just my own subjective versions. What is God's definition of murder, rape, lying? Are there any other objective morals you could define and add to the list? I genuinely want to know what your God says the absolute true definition of these things are.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
These show we do have a choice.

I agree that the Bible seems to suggest we have choices. The problem is that it also says those choices are predestined. Often when I talk to believers and cite something from thier own scriptures, they will quote another part of the scripture as if that settles the matter. The pain that it doesn't. Unless you can show that both things are logically consistent and not in contradiction, it does no good just to say "see this part over here disagrees" because all you are doing is hilighted the inconsistencies of the book.
To be fair I would expect a compilation of books from ancient cultures and different authors to have contradictions, this is only a problem because you claim it is the inspired and perfect word of God.

Yeah. I do by faith. I understand there is some evidence that supports it but I am not knowledgeable enough to debate it.

So of I could show you, hypothetically, that no global flood ever happened, how would that modify your belief in the Bible or in God?

Ok? I'm lost. You seem to be saying that your family would be with you on this "family vacation without air conditioning etc. If your wife and children are Christian and are saved you will be traveling alone. My point was that I hoped you would be going where they are going.

Oh I see what you were getting at. Fair enough, it is a good emotional appeal but I actually already believe that I am going to end up in the same place as my loved ones... We will all be dead. Is this sad... I feel sad thinking about it from this vantage point of being alive but the truth is that I was dead for billions of years before I was born and I don't recall it bothering me in the slightest.

True but Christian theology rests completely on the Bible.

Wait.... I said that your particular faith seems to be based in experience more than the Bible.
You agree that this is true.
Then you say but Christian theology rests in the Bible.
Are you saying your faith is different from Christian theology? If so in what ways is it different?

That is what I call both apply.

You are welcome to assert that both things apply but you are also required to demonstrate that they are not in contradiction.

Who are the elect?

The people God chose ahead of creation to save with him in heaven for eternity.

Like my answer before, even 99 out of 100 is to few.

If missing even 1 shoul out of 100 is too high a failure rate, why did God set this system up this way? That problem aside you ate just incorrect here. God is the one who actively initiates the salvation process in each of his post sheep, he does not do this for all people (most in fact as we have established) so he clearly has higher priorities than rescuing his lost sheep.

Jesus was sent for all and all are saved if they accept His salvation.

Nope the verse you cited Jesus was sent that all who believed should be saved. This means in this verse that we was not sent for those who do not believe.

I am beginning to understand that your time as a Christian was not one of study according to Christian theology. It is very important here to understand that we are not under the law as Christians. Until the Jews accept Christ they are under the law. We are not. Christ's death and resurrection put to death the law but Jews did not accept Christ.

I am beginning to wonder the same thing about your reading of scripture. If you want to combat the Matthew passage you should have gone for Hebrews 8.
Also based on your argument that Jesus was not talking about Christians you would have to be willing to throw out the entire sermon on the mount as being irrelevant to Christianity is that your stance?
When you say that Jesus died and put the law to death so it is no longer applicable think about what you are saying. The law was gods list of instructions in how to live perfectly with no sin. What about Jesus dying changes gods mind about what is sinful and what is not? I get that it is no longer a salvation issue (as it says in Matthew) but if you love God and want to please him shouldn't you want to live in the sinless way he described?

• Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace."
• Gal. 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law."

• Rom. 2:12, "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law," (ἐν νόμῳ, en nomo, literally "in law").
• Gal. 3:23, "But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally "under law").
• Gal. 4:5, "in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally "under law"). Courtesy of CARM.

This is what I pointed out earlier. When one part says one thing and another something different there is a contradiction. Imagine this had happened in reverse order and you had stated that we are no longer under the law and then quoted the above verses. Then in response I quoted Matthew and considered that case closed, a win for me, how would you respond? Probably something like... One verse can't stand alone, we need to think about it in the context of the whole scriptures etc right? The problem you have is that the Bible isn't consistent all the way through and contradictions arise. What do you do with those contradictions? Are they important to you? Does it matter that gods word has errors, contradictions, forgeries etc in it?

That is simply not true. God choose Noah and His family and the descendants of Noah were who these people were. They were rejecting the God that saved their lines from death.

Nope, good effort though. First the story of Noah is myth not history and your argument here depends on it being history. Second even of you were correct about Noah (good luck demonstrating a global flood!) the fact remains that at the time God chose the Israelites, there existed other distinct people groups and he specifically did not choose them. He chose one group to enter into relationship with, provided them with a covenant and a way to righteousness, forgave thier sins through animal blood magic etc. The other groups did not get these benefits and were left to live apart from him, not chosen.

Judges chapter 2:1-3 says:

Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: “I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you.’ ”

So we see that it isn't a guarantee, when they don't obey His voice.

Another example of selective reading of scripture Notice how the verse you cited begins with "now", why is this the case. Because Judges 2 is a continuation from Judges 1. The events in 1 have already happened and God is responding to them. So it is like this.

1. God is with them (meaning fights on thier behalf in some way)
2. God can't beat this group because they have chariots of iron. (
And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19 ESV
http://bible.com/59/jdg.1.19.ESV) notice that the verse tells us why God couldn't best them...it doesn't say "because gods people didn't obey him properly" it says "because they had chariots of iron".
3. The other groups in the area get conquered but some of the people are allowed to live.
4. God is angry about people being allowed to stau because he had wanted a clean sweep.
5. He says... Moving forward (implied) I will not defeat these people for you because you have not obeyed.

So not only does your justification not make sense in the context of the story, your answer flat out contradicts the reason given in the scriptures that you claim are correct in every way.

I said, how would you know if the love you have for each other is true love? What would inform you of that if there was nothing else but what you had?

This is avoiding the question. Whether or not you know you have true love is irrelevant. Please go back and look at what was actually being asked.

Like I showed you earlier, the majority of people born will live in heaven. If the majority of people have either been saved due to age or faith already so far. You would have to show that God could allow for free choice without compromising that decision.

No you did not show that most people born will live in heaven. In fact you agreed, based on the verse we discussed about the broad and the narrow way that most people do not go to heaven.
Second I have shown we could all have free choices and still all be in heaven. God could simply have made the choice for us that we would go to heaven and allowed us free will to choose all kinds of other things. Please demonstrate that this is a logically inconsistent position and I will retract it.

You were a Christian but you decided the evidence wasn't sufficient for you. I look at the evidence and it is overwhelming. We are looking at the same evidence but see it differently. Do you think that God forced you to

Nope because I don't think god exists.

We know that the drive behind freeing the slaves two times in history came about by people through the Bible realized that keeping slaves was not what was intended and that slaves and free men were equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Yes many abolitionists were Christians. For the record there were freethinkers in that movement as well. We also know that the Bible, as illuminated by the holy spirit, was used to justify slavery for centuries and that it was the Christian colonial powers that established the slave trade that the abolitionists would later protest. If you want to give credit for opposing spa ery make sure you also give credit for making it a thriving enterprise for generations.

I see nothing wrong with God working with people to bring about moral change. Society of the day could not have eliminated the slavery system all together. However, with the instructions given...kidnapping and enslaving people was wrong but indentured servants and slaves created by war were more human than the alternatives.

Once, can you please stop suggesting that the only slaves were indentured servants or refugees, in light of what the Bible says and our own discussion, it comes across as disingenuous. Exodus describes a legal form of slavery (not kidnapping) wherein the slaves were considered property, could be beaten without the owner being punished, could be given as sexual partners etc. I know you think this is all justified and of that is your moral standard then so be it, but don't keep avoiding the fact that it is in the Bible.
Now to your first point, that people could not have eliminated slavery altogether. Here in North America we have done a pretty good job of eliminating slavery (not entirely of course) and this is without any direct help from an all powerful God. So of course they could have if the omnipotent God of the universe wanted it that way. If you think it is logically impossible for God to have eliminated slavery in those times please demonstrate this or stop asserting it.

Do you know of any Canaanites or Amalekites? I don't know of any distinct group from Old Testament times that has remained unified and completely separate from other nationalities, do you?

I don't and neither do you.
Do you know of any Israelites who's blood line never blended with any other nationalities from the times of Noah until present day? Keep in mind that Israel was not even a country for a lot of this time so an unbroken chain is going to be pretty hard to establish. Good luck!

Do you mean Exegesis? That would be true if it were not a main interpretation in Christian theology, even Jews for Jesus recognize it.

No I meant isegesis (reading what you want to be there into scripture in which those things are not found).
News for Jesus are Christians that have converted from Judaism what would you expect them to say? Are they the majority opinion among Jews? Do most Jews agree with your position or do most not agree?

For one thing it is contradicting your argument, which is that God condones slavery. Is it God or the Hebrews that are at fault. Which one would you like to attribute this to?

No my argument is not that God condones slavery. I don't believe god exists. The reason I talk with Christians about slavery is that you have a deep moral intuition that it is wrong and can't reconcile that feeling with a God who condones slavery in his holy message to humanity.
I think the slavery in the Bible was written in by humans in power who wanted to maintain the status quo and so they appealed to a greater authority that no one could ever check with.

If God had said take no slaves no matter what then what would they have done? What would be your solution? What would you think God should have done?

Off the top of my head he could have.
1. Performed a miracle and resettled those refugees in a new and prosperous land
2. Established social support structures similar to modern day ones that don't default to slavery.
3. Abolished them and taken them straight to heaven.
4. Not given the order for thier people to be slaughtered and instead worked out a non violet solution

I could honestly do this all night and not run out of better possible solutions than slavery.

It is your conclusion that He is a tyrant and yet you have no objective moral directive to use to make that claim according to your view on morality. First of all, you have claimed that you understand that some actions that appear immoral may be moral due to the overall welfare of the majority. So we can from this understand that God could take actions that appear immoral but may be moral for the welfare of the majority. If I can show even one plausible case of an act of immorality for a moral reason and you have said as much with your abortion example, that makes your accusation of God being evil or immoral for His actions unsupported. You would have to know the mind of God and His motivations to know that there was no moral reason for His actions.

Once, what do you think my position on morality is. You keep saying that I have no grounds for making any moral judgement. I know this is a common tactic from apologists but I had thought we had already discussed this and that you knew where my morality is based. So yes if God exists as described in the Bible he is a tyrant, drowning 99.99 percent of the population, causing natural disasters, sending most souls to hell etc. These are things that cause harm. You can say that there must be a higher reason, and I can't prove you wrong, but equally you can't prove you are right. All I can say is that based on the only evidence available to me, God as described, would be a moral monster (and yes I have read Copan's terrible book)
Second I didn't say that a harmful action that has a greater benefit is therefore moral full stop, I said that it is a more moral choice.
Finally your position here makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying that of you can show any example of a harmful/immoral action in fact being more moral because of its results, that this somehow justifies all of God's atrocities... So for us limited in power and knowledge humans cutting someone open is harmful but in the case of life saving surgery it is more moral than not cutting, therefore it is OK that God drowns people? This just doesn't make sense.... What am missing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you know that the probability of these parameters is not 1.0?

Explain?

So how do we identify design in your view?

Design is apparent. We recognize design when we observe it. Taking to the bare bones however, I think we can determine design in the same way we recognize human design. Purpose, order, language, codes, and complexity.

Again a good effort. So there are two problems with your position here. First I don't see any logical contradiction between having knowledge of good and willing evil and second there is no difference that I can see between Ed having full knowledge of good and willing evil and Yahweh having full knowledge of evil and willing good. Why would one be a contradiction and not the other?

I understand your confusion but when you look at what having full knowledge of good means you must understand that this knowledge creates constraints. If one knows the Pythagorean theorem one can not logically contradict it. If someone would claim it to be false we would know that they were lacking knowledge of the Theorem.

If Ed does have the full knowledge of good, perfect morality, He would need to contradict that to will evil; whereas, for Yahweh the full knowledge of Good requires perfect morality which supports by the way that those acts that appear to be immoral must have a greater moral good. If Ed is omniscient, why would he knowing the great harm being done would he choose to do evil? If morality originates with the Supreme Being as theology claims, why would we have an ingrained moral compass that steers us to good rather than evil?

So in summary you think that all the scientists who believe that the global flood never happened or that the firmament doesn't exist surrounding the earth are so biased that they are misinterpreting all the data? And that future (presumably less biased) scientists will be forced by the evidence to eventually admit that all the things in the Bible are true?

I tend to think that there could be a translation issue on the flood being global, or evidence not being in the right place as interpreted to be when the flood might have happened. Like I said, I take this one completely on faith and I don't go on blind faith but the confirmation of so many other things that this is relatively small in comparison.

The firmament is another translation issue. The word raqia can be translated as "spread out". It seems that this gets a lot of attention using the solid dome translation but there is no real reason that it must mean that and not the other meaning "spread out".

You are making a logical error here. The fact that Pharaoh has sinned in the past has no relevance to the specific instance where God makes him sin by hardening his heart as described in the verses I cited. I agree (within your worldview) that Pharaoh has previously sinned against God but it simply does not matter. I agree that given the description in the Bible that after these events pharaoh would likely sin again. Again this is irrelevant. We are discussing a signal instance in which Pharaoh's free will choice was to obey God, but then God overrides that free will and forces him to do something different... And then punishes not only Pharaoh but also all the Egyptians who didn't have anything to do with this event.

What makes you think that God punishes Pharaoh and the Egyptians for "this event" rather than the long line of transgressions prior to Moses coming to him?

I feel that he was forced to sin because that is what the Bible says. I agree that it was not out of character for him to sin but in the instance the Bible is describing he was planning to obey God and was forced not to.
That aside I would say that I do not agree with Pharaoh's morality, specifically the keeping of slaves. That said, him being a generally horrible person does not mean that he wasn't also mistreated in the specific instance under discussion.

Provide one example in any bible that claims that God forced Pharaoh to sin. Now, if someone has dealt horribly with a people that are considered less than human and is punished for that are they being mistreated?

I worded the quest as a negative and then asked you for an affirmation.... Sorry.
To be clear. You are saying that there is no possible act that God could do that would cause your sensibilities to be offended because he is good and will have some good reason for doing it.

You are also saying that the acts God has committed (in your worldview) in the past likewise do not offend your sensibilities, such as drownjng 99.99...percent of the souls made in his image, or devastating earthquakes etc.

Did I get that right?

I believe if you will re-read my responses, I literally said that those events offend my sensibilities. It does so due to my ingrained moral compass that in my worldview comes from God. You are also mixing up those events that are by the very hand of God/His actions and natural disasters. Did you mean to do so?

Well actually we don't know that midwives must have been doing killing, we can actually only say that within the context of the story that there was a danger to Moses' life and so he had to be whisked away.

Which was my point?

This is flat out false. God killed the firstborn because Pharaoh's "choice". Even if it were the case that the killing of firstborns was in retribution for the Egyptians killing Hebrews (and it isn't) it still doesn't make sense unless you are arguing that every single non Hebrew family was involved in the killing of the Hebrew children, which is pretty absurd.

Why must it be every non-Hebrew family that was involved in the dying anymore than the killing of the Hebrew babies? Only those non-Hebrew families that had a firstborn male were affected. That means that there would be many that didn't lose anyone in their families. Now where does the knowledge of God's motivation in your comment come from then? How do you know that even though the Bible clearly implies that the reason for the retribution for killing Hebrew's firstborn males was the motivation for the action of God with the firstborn males of the Egyptians, that it was not?

In light of this, does it worry you that you are on record as saying that abortion is acceptable in some instances?

No.

I don't believe that objective morals exist, I believe that in any particular situation there exists a gradient of moral choices that are context dependant and generally based on the principle of harm (which you have yet to show is problematic). Within a given situation we could say that there is an objectively correct decision (in reference to harm) but this is not the same as saying that objective morals exist.

What basis do you determine when there is a moral choice to be made? For instance, is lying not objectively wrong since the harm it causes usually doesn't produce physical harm? Also, what determines who's morality is the correct or right one? If you claim it is the one that does the least harm does that mean that some harm is not morally wrong or incorrect? If someone comes along and says that their morality allows for harm, who determines he/she is wrong or incorrect. I mean it is immoral according to you to do harm to others but someone else might feel that some harm is acceptable to them.

Please justify these statements.
1) All the Egyptians who had firstborns killed by God, had previously killed Hebrew firstborns.

Would God not know each and every person who had done so?

2) Egyptians could put blood on the doors to avoid gods wrath.

In 9:18-21 we see some Egyptians took heed to God's command and who we can assume would do so again.

You are correct, it says to become humble like these children, who believe in Jesus. I was responding to your statement that we need to have faith like children. If you no longer hold that position in light of re-reading the source text that is fine
The point at issue though is that children don't automatically go to heaven.

Why then did King David claim he would see his own son in heaven after he died?

You have said that because of Eve we all inherit a sin nature, but it is worse than that, we actually inherit sin from our ancestors. The Bible describes cases where this sin of the parent is visited on subsequent generations who are held accountable for it.

What this is saying is that inequity of idolatry will be passed on through those generations. That it is so entrenched in the society that it will take that long for it to be reversed.

The Bible says we come for from the womb sinning, it says there is not one (without specifying age) that has not sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Yes Jesus loved these children, because they were believers and he liked thier humility but this verse doesn't prove as you wanted it to that all children go to heaven.

King David disagrees.

Please explain how God predestined my choices and how I also have free will. Please refer that predestination doesn't mean "had knowledge of ahead of time" it means actually insuring that something will happen, it means setting the future, determining fate.etc.
Good luck

Knowledge in advance does not mean interference in the events one knows. I know looking back in time that my parents married and had two children. I didn't have anything to do with that, but if I was outside of time knowing the end from the beginning I would know this not only was going to happen but when and how and I didn't interfere in anyway with it.

Actually I wasn't claiming that since all Christians don't agree that it is false. It is a problem to be sure though, how do all these Christians who are all having the scriptures opened for them by the holy spirit get such conflicting messages from it?
If you think scripture supports the idea that all children get into heaven, please cite those verses and we will look into it.
Quick side question... Who do you define as a Christian?

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

And said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

I agree that the text doesn't explicitly say that but you are incorrect that we have no idea about what information and knowledge she had (according to the story). As you say she had the information that God had told her not to eat this fruit. We also know that she did not have knowledge of good and evil. So to recap the Eve knows God exists and that he has told her not to do something. The knowledge that it is good to obey God and evil to disobey God CAN NOT be part of that knowledge since she has not yet eaten the fruit. Since moral knowledge in your view is knowledge about good and evil Eve can not be said to be making an immoral choice. I would argue that she is very much like a child. She knows the parent said don't do this, but she doesn't know why or even that it would be wrong to do it, or even that it would be sinful to disobey the parent. So I think the comparison is a good one. How then is it justifiable to hold Eve accountable?

It doesn't matter whether she knows good or evil, she understood the command and felt guilt afterward which shows she knew she had done wrong.

Great thanks for clearing that up. Could you define those terms for me though. I have my own definitions but I am worried now that maybe mine are just my own subjective versions. What is God's definition of murder, rape, lying? Are there any other objective morals you could define and add to the list? I genuinely want to know what your God says the absolute true definition of these things are.

We don't know the definitions that God uses, but we know that all un-justifiable killings are murder. That is the objective moral standard on murder. Rape would be non-consensual sex or sex with someone unable to consent. Lying is not telling the truth. I suppose there are others that we use all the time but have no label for.

I agree that the Bible seems to suggest we have choices. The problem is that it also says those choices are predestined.

Where does it say choices are predestined?

Often when I talk to believers and cite something from thier own scriptures, they will quote another part of the scripture as if that settles the matter. The pain that it doesn't. Unless you can show that both things are logically consistent and not in contradiction, it does no good just to say "see this part over here disagrees" because all you are doing is hilighted the inconsistencies of the book.
To be fair I would expect a compilation of books from ancient cultures and different authors to have contradictions, this is only a problem because you claim it is the inspired and perfect word of God.

The Holy Spirit has many motivations. For instance we can be led to believe something from it to bring us to understanding of something else and then be led later to new understanding and a new belief of that original belief. There are many things in our own lives that may seem inconsistent but in reality are only inconsistent due to a lack of knowledge.

I believe the Bible to be inspired by God but I also understand that it must be viewed and understood from the times it was written and that there is translation issues.

So of I could show you, hypothetically, that no global flood ever happened, how would that modify your belief in the Bible or in God?

Like I said, I am not sure enough of the text nor having sufficient knowledge to determine your argument.


Oh I see what you were getting at. Fair enough, it is a good emotional appeal but I actually already believe that I am going to end up in the same place as my loved ones... We will all be dead. Is this sad... I feel sad thinking about it from this vantage point of being alive but the truth is that I was dead for billions of years before I was born and I don't recall it bothering me in the slightest.

Wait.... I said that your particular faith seems to be based in experience more than the Bible.
You agree that this is true.
Then you say but Christian theology rests in the Bible.
Are you saying your faith is different from Christian theology? If so in what ways is it different?

Your confusion is understandable. The Bible informs me but God is from where my position is confirmed.

You are welcome to assert that both things apply but you are also required to demonstrate that they are not in contradiction.

I think it is a paradox.

The people God chose ahead of creation to save with him in heaven for eternity.

Why do you think this is the case?

If missing even 1 shoul out of 100 is too high a failure rate, why did God set this system up this way? That problem aside you ate just incorrect here. God is the one who actively initiates the salvation process in each of his post sheep, he does not do this for all people (most in fact as we have established) so he clearly has higher priorities than rescuing his lost sheep.

Where does it say that He doesn't do it for all people?

Nope the verse you cited Jesus was sent that all who believed should be saved. This means in this verse that we was not sent for those who do not believe.

So did Christ just die for the sins of those you think are predestined to believe?

I am beginning to wonder the same thing about your reading of scripture. If you want to combat the Matthew passage you should have gone for Hebrews 8.
Also based on your argument that Jesus was not talking about Christians you would have to be willing to throw out the entire sermon on the mount as being irrelevant to Christianity is that your stance?
When you say that Jesus died and put the law to death so it is no longer applicable think about what you are saying. The law was gods list of instructions in how to live perfectly with no sin. What about Jesus dying changes gods mind about what is sinful and what is not? I get that it is no longer a salvation issue (as it says in Matthew) but if you love God and want to please him shouldn't you want to live in the sinless way he described?

First and foremost the law was not given with the intention that man could live by it. It was given to show they couldn't and needed a Savior. Yes, we should always follow Jesus's lead and We should love others as we love ourselves and love God with all our heart and mind.

This is what I pointed out earlier. When one part says one thing and another something different there is a contradiction. Imagine this had happened in reverse order and you had stated that we are no longer under the law and then quoted the above verses. Then in response I quoted Matthew and considered that case closed, a win for me, how would you respond? Probably something like... One verse can't stand alone, we need to think about it in the context of the whole scriptures etc right? The problem you have is that the Bible isn't consistent all the way through and contradictions arise. What do you do with those contradictions? Are they important to you? Does it matter that gods word has errors, contradictions, forgeries etc in it?

Most contradictions are mainly from misunderstanding the verses by non-believers, and it is utterly amazing to me that the Bible has like 40 authors from all walks of life, writing over a period of 2,000 years and three continents written in three different languages being consistent in message. I find that to have anything that consistent with that many variables is incredibly astounding.

Nope, good effort though. First the story of Noah is myth not history and your argument here depends on it being history. Second even of you were correct about Noah (good luck demonstrating a global flood!) the fact remains that at the time God chose the Israelites, there existed other distinct people groups and he specifically did not choose them. He chose one group to enter into relationship with, provided them with a covenant and a way to righteousness, forgave thier sins through animal blood magic etc. The other groups did not get these benefits and were left to live apart from him, not chosen.

Now Athee, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You want to use Scripture to prove your points and then claim foul when I do. My position is that you are using the Bible to claim that God is immoral, that God predestines people to hell, that we don't have free will and so on. Now whether or not the story of Noah is true, it goes with the argument within the Bible itself. All people after the flood come from Noah. All have knowledge of Yahweh. Period, case closed. The other people were not other people until they chose to reject God.


Another example of selective reading of scripture Notice how the verse you cited begins with "now", why is this the case. Because Judges 2 is a continuation from Judges 1. The events in 1 have already happened and God is responding to them.

So it is like this.

1. God is with them (meaning fights on thier behalf in some way)
2. God can't beat this group because they have chariots of iron. (
And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.
Judges 1:19 ESV
http://bible.com/59/jdg.1.19.ESV) notice that the verse tells us why God couldn't best them...it doesn't say "because gods people didn't obey him properly" it says "because they had chariots of iron".
3. The other groups in the area get conquered but some of the people are allowed to live.
4. God is angry about people being allowed to stau because he had wanted a clean sweep.
5. He says... Moving forward (implied) I will not defeat these people for you because you have not obeyed.

So not only does your justification not make sense in the context of the story, your answer flat out contradicts the reason given in the scriptures that you claim are correct in every way.

Does it say they tried? Did it say they went up to fight and lost? Did it say that were defeated in battle? No. It doesn't say they went to battle at all. If they would have they would have written about it. They were defeated in other battles and told of it.

This is avoiding the question. Whether or not you know you have true love is irrelevant. Please go back and look at what was actually being asked.

God would.

No you did not show that most people born will live in heaven. In fact you agreed, based on the verse we discussed about the broad and the narrow way that most people do not go to heaven.
Second I have shown we could all have free choices and still all be in heaven. God could simply have made the choice for us that we would go to heaven and allowed us free will to choose all kinds of other things. Please demonstrate that this is a logically inconsistent position and I will retract it.

I don't feel a retraction is necessary. You feel the way you feel but I don't believe you have anything to show that God doesn't in fact give everyone some kind of sign that they attribute to God and either move towards God or away. There are very few (unbelievers) people that I've ever spoken with that claim they didn't at some time or other feel that God was acting in their lives, but later attribute it to something else. You have also not shown that God could have created us with free choice and still make sure everyone chooses Him. That doesn't even make sense. How if you have free choice would it be right to force us to "chose" Him?

Nope because I don't think god exists.

Why then do you spend time and effort arguing against something you don't believe exists. I don't spend time or effort on people who believe in fairies. Nor do I spend time arguing against those who believe that aliens exist. So why do you think it is so important to you to come here and argue against a God you don't think exists?

Yes many abolitionists were Christians. For the record there were freethinkers in that movement as well. We also know that the Bible, as illuminated by the holy spirit, was used to justify slavery for centuries and that it was the Christian colonial powers that established the slave trade that the abolitionists would later protest. If you want to give credit for opposing spa ery make sure you also give credit for making it a thriving enterprise for generations.

We are talking about here in the US right? If we are as I thought, the Bible most certainly did not condone the slavery of the states and the Bible was not used to support it other than people completely ignoring what it says.

Once, can you please stop suggesting that the only slaves were indentured servants or refugees, in light of what the Bible says and our own discussion, it comes across as disingenuous. Exodus describes a legal form of slavery (not kidnapping) wherein the slaves were considered property, could be beaten without the owner being punished, could be given as sexual partners etc. I know you think this is all justified and of that is your moral standard then so be it, but don't keep avoiding the fact that it is in the Bible.

Were else did the slaves come from if not from being indentured or from war since they couldn't be forced into slavery by kidnapping them? And you claim I am coming across as disingenuous! Nice. I've not said that beating was permissible, and given as sex partners is a little like misrepresenting the case as they were not used and tossed away as one could if they were just "sex partners" like in other cultures but they were married with all rights accorded wives.

Now to your first point, that people could not have eliminated slavery altogether. Here in North America we have done a pretty good job of eliminating slavery (not entirely of course) and this is without any direct help from an all powerful God. So of course they could have if the omnipotent God of the universe wanted it that way. If you think it is logically impossible for God to have eliminated slavery in those times please demonstrate this or stop asserting it.

Do you believe that you are arguing any less with assertions? God works through the natural world, our hands are His hands most of the time. If God told the Hebrews not to have slaves and to set them all free what do you think would have happened to a society that was completely entrenched in that life style. Even in the case of slavery in the US, there were damaging aspects of freeing the slaves but nothing near what would have happened then. Women and children starving, left out in the weather with nothing or no one to provide their needs, people falling into the hands of a more cruel and horrendous people.

I don't and neither do you.
Do you know of any Israelites who's blood line never blended with any other nationalities from the times of Noah until present day? Keep in mind that Israel was not even a country for a lot of this time so an unbroken chain is going to be pretty hard to establish. Good luck!

The fact that the Jews are a group of people separate and distinct people, as shown when they were all targeted to be eliminated by Hitler.

No I meant isegesis (reading what you want to be there into scripture in which those things are not found).
News for Jesus are Christians that have converted from Judaism what would you expect them to say? Are they the majority opinion among Jews? Do most Jews agree with your position or do most not agree?

Are you claiming that most Christian's don't agree with the Passover being a representation of the coming Savior?

No my argument is not that God condones slavery. I don't believe god exists. The reason I talk with Christians about slavery is that you have a deep moral intuition that it is wrong and can't reconcile that feeling with a God who condones slavery in his holy message to humanity.
I think the slavery in the Bible was written in by humans in power who wanted to maintain the status quo and so they appealed to a greater authority that no one could ever check with.

Do you really believe they believe God condoned slavery anyway? I don't. The fact that we have a deep moral intuition that something is wrong is one of the strongest points in favor of moral objectivity which is ingrained within us from God.

Off the top of my head he could have.
1. Performed a miracle and resettled those refugees in a new and prosperous land
2. Established social support structures similar to modern day ones that don't default to slavery.
3. Abolished them and taken them straight to heaven.
4. Not given the order for thier people to be slaughtered and instead worked out a non violet solution

I could honestly do this all night and not run out of better possible solutions than slavery.

I'm sure God will be very gracious towards your solutions when you are face to face.

Once, what do you think my position on morality is. You keep saying that I have no grounds for making any moral judgement. I know this is a common tactic from apologists but I had thought we had already discussed this and that you knew where my morality is based. So yes if God exists as described in the Bible he is a tyrant, drowning 99.99 percent of the population, causing natural disasters, sending most souls to hell etc. These are things that cause harm. You can say that there must be a higher reason, and I can't prove you wrong, but equally you can't prove you are right. All I can say is that based on the only evidence available to me, God as described, would be a moral monster (and yes I have read Copan's terrible book)
Second I didn't say that a harmful action that has a greater benefit is therefore moral full stop, I said that it is a more moral choice.
Finally your position here makes no sense to me. You seem to be saying that of you can show any example of a harmful/immoral action in fact being more moral because of its results, that this somehow justifies all of God's atrocities... So for us limited in power and knowledge humans cutting someone open is harmful but in the case of life saving surgery it is more moral than not cutting, therefore it is OK that God drowns people? This just doesn't make sense.... What am missing?

Your morality based on causing harm isn't objective nor does it determine what is moral. Only something that is objectively moral with a standard from which to start can be truly moral or immoral. All you can really say is that according to your morality which is based on harm you determine that God was immoral. I say you are wrong. Who determines which of us it right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think that I don't see where this answers my question. Am I choosing to be be deceived by Satan, or is it just sort of happening?

You are under Satan's influence if you are not under God's.

You've missed the point here I think. The point is that in Luke 21 Jesus claims that at least some from this generation will witness his return. This refutes your argument that Jesus' lack of knowledge of the exact date of his return precludes the possibility that he could be referring to the second coming in Luke 9:27 for example.

I see what you mean about the Greek though. That said, the article you link does say that major changes in idea or subject are generally (but not always) broken by a blank space. The fact that Jesus's prophecy and the transfiguration are in separate chapters does not support your claim that they refer to the same thing. In fact the article you linked suggests that they are indeed referring to different things and that in Mark where they appear together it is simply an example of major ideas not being divided up as sometimes happened.

This doesn't really fit. I don't think an event 30 years in the future can be considered imminent in any reasonable sense. Certainly not in the sense that something that was going to happen in six days is imminent. Do you have any better examples?

But you've still provided nothing form the scripture to indicate that when Jesus said "this generation" he was misleadingly referring not to the people in front of him but to a generation 2000 years in the future. What allows you to ignore the obvious common-sense reading of that passage?

Common-sense and spiritual sense is not the same according to Scripture. What may seem like common sense to you and what actually is being said can be very far apart in a spiritual sense. Jesus Himself said that His second coming was not known by Himself but only the father. You have neglected to show how Jesus could be talking about the second coming when He didn't even know when that would happen. The disciples knew that Jesus said HE didn't know when He would return so if there was some question of that, they would have asked how He knew some of them would be alive at the time. They didn't.

That doesn't really address the issue. If Jesus feels that even one lost soul is too many, why does his plan involve most souls being created with the foreknowledge that they will be damned? How is it loving to create a bunch of souls you know in advance are not going to be able to avoid damnation?

The reason you don't understand this is due to not understanding God's nature. Yes, God is loving but He is also Holy and righteous. He has to provide justice against the injustices mankind does.

But that's not true. We know he is willing to monkey with free will when it suits his purposes. And you have repeatedly claimed that killing children before they can make a free will choice works just fine for God. So he is willing to subvert free will and also save souls without them choosing to be saved. So clearly neither saving his creations nor having them choose him are really the most important considerations.

How do you know it isn't true? He doesn't subvert free will He either cements it as a punishment in judgement or takes life before judgement is needed. Why would He set up a system where free will is necessary if it wasn't important to Him? He shows mercy and He shows judgement. Perhaps His love of children is greater in this situation than their later free will.

We were discussing whether lack of evidence for something can be considered to support the idea that something existed but was eliminated. I say absolutely not. Do you agree or disagree?

I said it was possible. Clearly, there are probably many more ideas that could be possible.

Cop out. You're taking for granted that killing the entire planet was actually the best solution. But you can't actually make this action fit with any usable definition of "loving". "Kill them all" is a lazy solution, not an optimum one if one is interested in preserving one's beloved creations. Especially if one possesses limitless power.

How can it be a cop out when it is consistent with Christian theology? Now while you might not agree with His solution and find it "lazy" or even an optimal solution preserving life is not God's goal. God's goal is to have as many accept Him and co-Exist with Him. Preservation for the people of that time would have altered the ability for people in the near and far future to have salvation.

I would agree that truth is truth regardless of our awareness of it. I disagree when you start switch gears and say that truth exists because God makes it.

Well, we have been down this road before. IF truth is absolute and universal from where does it arise?

In any case this doesn't really refute the point I made. Science is a self-correcting way of approaching our best understanding of the truth in a way that faith isn't. Faith can lead you in all manner of directions and you will never know if you are getting closer to the truth or not. This is evinced by the vast array of religions and the vast numbers of different beliefs within those religions. Everyone is convinced they're right and faith doesn't provide the means to show you or them otherwise.

How does Science give us the best understanding of truth? In Christianity, faith does not sit alone. Reason is the foundation of the faith. There are indeed a vast array of religions and beliefs within them but there is not a vast arrays of truth in the religions or beliefs. As with any endeavor that Humans partake we search for the best explanation that aligns with reality, that there are hundreds of millions of explanations in the world does not negate the truth of some and that some are most certainly false. We walk in search of the truth and we can know by comparing our beliefs with reality.

But we do have proof that being 100% human does not preclude the possibility of also being sinless. You are the one asserting that a created being can't be sinless so you should be able to support this. You've also failed to support the assertion that omniscience is required for sinlessness. Now you're claiming that the whole divine package is necessary, again without anything but your own assertions.

You are asserting that we can be human and sinless but have given no support for that assertion.

I think targeting Russia's nuclear installations would be better. But that doesn't really matter. God is omnipotent so the comparison doesn't work. In this scenario the best recourse we have is killing Russia whereas God can do anything at all. Killing the entire planet is not even close to the only option for such a being. Certainly not when we're expected to believe that God loves all his creations so darn much. Again, this strategy is like beating up three of your children so the fourth kid behaves.

You like to use God's omnipotent nature to bring accusations of His motivations but dismiss or ignore the other facets of His being. His Holy nature and righteousness as well as His goal for as many as possible to co-exist with Him of their own free will.

I don't agree. Clearly it's not that easy to see and understand because we know directly from Jesus that most won't be saved. And you haven't really answered the question. How do you reconcile this allegedly loving nature with a plan that involves the majority of souls being created with the foreknowledge that they will be damned? How is giving his creations a choice loving when he knows before they even exist that they will make the wrong choice? He has created most of humanity to suffer and be damned. How is that loving?

Everyone of the majority of souls that will be populating hell had the same opportunity as the ones who will not.

So if free will is about making the choice to accept or reject god, why doesn't taking that choice away violate free will?

There is no rejection or acceptance to take away.

Again, parsimony is about making as few assumptions as possible. Just because angiosperm evolution is not nailed down doesn't mean that every idea about how their evolutionary history is equally parsimonious. They could have evolved on another planet as a sentient organism but then an asteroid destroyed their race except for a few spores which were transported to Earth where they evolved into the angiosperms we know today. This could have happened, but it is nowhere near as parsimonious as the idea that angiosperms evolved on Earth in the Mesozoic. Understand? Just because we don't know exactly how it happened doesn't mean that your idea is as parsimonious as the mainstream idea.

What does this even mean? Are you arguing that the fossil record is not consistent with angiosperms having evolved? You statement about parsimony is incorrect. It is much more parsimonious to conclude that angiosperms evolved in or near the Mesozoic (supported by the the fact that both molecular and fossil evidence places angiosperm origins in the Mesozoic) than to assume that simply because plants existed in the Precambrian that Angiosperms evolved then before going extinct for another 400 million years or so and then evolving again.

Sorry, but this isn't very useful. Do you have anything from the body of this paper that supports the point you suggest it does?

In any case, the uncertainty surrounding angiosperm evolution doesn't really help your case as far as I can tell. Last I heard, you were arguing that angiosperms evolved in the Precambrian before any animals and then went extinct before evolving again. The exact details of the evolution angiosperms as we know them today doesn't have any bearing on that argument.


This doesn't address the similarities I highlighted. You are arguing that evidence of plants in the Precambrian suggests that angiosperms evolved in the Precambrian. I am arguing that evidence of tetrapods in the Paleozoic suggests that horses evolved in the Paleozoic. Why do you find the one convincing and the other not?

I guess we will wait and see what comes about in the next couple of decades as we find more and more about the Precambrian. I will concede that as of right now, there is no evidence that angiosperms were actually in the Precambrian but then again, no one believed that plants were either. It was more parsimonious at the time to conclude that there were no plants possible during the Precambrian and we now know that was false.

It is not at all obvious that it is a chronological sequence from the "beginning to the present time". Where do you get the idea that it refers to a sequence up to the present time? I am arguing that the biblical author was not trying to convey what you claim he is. The words say that "all living things" in the water were created at the same time. Where in the text do you find support for the idea that the biblical author was really talking only about the phyla that appeared in the Cambrian (which is not actually all the phyla currently in existence) rather than "all living things" in the water which is what he actually wrote? My interpretation is based on the actual words of Genesis. Yours is based on assuming the author was saying something besides what is actually written.

All living things of the time were in the water which is what he wrote.

Here.

This doesn't take me to a post but to a page and so I have no idea what this is pointing me to.

 

[Athée]

Explain?

We only know of one universe, so in 1 out of 1 cases the constants happened the way we observe them. We can hypothesize that they could have been different but until we have another universe that corroborates that hypothesis, it is just speculation. It could be the case that all the constants we observe are in fact the only possibility, not for getting a universe with human life, but for a universe to exist at all. The point is that we just don't know and so any probability argument is ultimately just a thought experiment.

Design is apparent. We recognize design when we observe it. Taking to the bare bones however, I think we can determine design in the same way we recognize human design. Purpose, order, language, codes, and complexity.

So basically design is like porn? We know it when we see it!
But seriously you are saying we will know just by looking/studying something if it has been designed?
One way I would say of knowing what something is, is to compare it to things it is not. Can you give me an example of something that is not designed?
I would say that the patten of pine needles on a random forrest floor is not designed would you agree?

I understand your confusion but when you look at what having full knowledge of good means you must understand that this knowledge creates constraints. If one knows the Pythagorean theorem one can not logically contradict it. If someone would claim it to be false we would know that they were lacking knowledge of the Theorem.

I don't follow your logic here at all. How does having knowledge impose constraints on actions. I could very easily know that Pythagoras had a valid proof of his theory and still claim that it is false. It would be deceptive of course but I would not in any way be constrained from doing so simply by having the knowledge of Pythagorean theory. Please demonstrate how knowledge creates restraints on behaviour.

If Ed does have the full knowledge of good, perfect morality, He would need to contradict that to will evil; whereas, for Yahweh the full knowledge of Good requires perfect morality which supports by the way that those acts that appear to be immoral must have a greater moral good

I don't see how any of this makes Ed a logically impossible being. Yes he knows what good is but his goal is to maximize evil and so he wills that which is not good. Sometimes he allows some good to occur but only because in his omnipotent omniscience he knows that such goods will ultimately lead to even greater evil. How have you refuted this in any way?

If Ed is omniscient, why would he knowing the great harm being done would he choose to do evil? If morality originates with the Supreme Being as theology claims, why would we have an ingrained moral compass that steers us to good rather than evil?

Ed wants the great harm, he wants evil. We have a very loose moral compass because the good it steers us towards is part of Ed's ultimate plan for producing the most possible amount of evil.

I tend to think that there could be a translation issue on the flood being global, or evidence not being in the right place as interpreted to be when the flood might have happened.

You are implying here that in fact the flood was local ( I agree that it was) but later in this post you are going to claim that all of humanity is descended from Noah. That would only be the case if all the rest of humanity were whipped out at that time. Did this happen by some other means, not the flood?

Like I said, I take this one completely on faith and I don't go on blind faith but the confirmation of so many other things that this is relatively small in comparison.

I take this completly on faith... Not blind faith? What?

I remember you saying that science is very important to you and that you want to know the truth of these things. If that was a genuine sentiment and you would like to know about the science I can link you to other threads in Christian forums that discuss the evidence (Or lack thereof) for a global flood.

The firmament is another translation issue. The word raqia can be translated as "spread out". It seems that this gets a lot of attention using the solid dome translation but there is no real reason that it must mean that and not the other meaning "spread out".

This is incorrect. Spread out is a verb and raqia is a noun. It can mean" something that is spread out" however. But it is an awful stretch ( ) to interpret it this way. In genesis 7:11 and 8:2 actual windows in this thing open up to allow raid to fall through. Water that had until the windows were opened been resting on top of the raqia. There are more indicators if you want them but suggesting that the firmament was not imagined as a solid object are not founded on a careful reading of scripture.
In light of this how is it that when we send rockets to the moon, they don't have to pass through this firmament and through the waters beyond?

What makes you think that God punishes Pharaoh and the Egyptians for "this event" rather than the long line of transgressions prior to Moses coming to him?

This is a fair point. You can say that the punishment was for all the instances and this one just happened to be the final instance. The problem is that this final instance would not have happened at all except that God made it happen.

That said I notice that you didn't actually respond to the point I was making so I will repeat it. You are making a logical error when you say that pharaohs past sins mean that he was not forced to sin in this specific instance. God knows what pharaoh will do ahead of time, if pharaoh was going to refuse to let the people go, God would not have to get involved in any way to accomplish his purpose. But God did get involved by hardening the heart of pharaoh, because he knew that by free will pharaoh was actually going to let the people go. This means that God ordered pharaoh to do something and then overrode free will in order to make sure pharaoh couldn't do it. Please specifically explain how this is not God forcing pharaoh to disobey a direct order from God.

Provide one example in any bible that claims that God forced Pharaoh to sin. Now, if someone has dealt horribly with a people that are considered less than human and is punished for that are they being mistreated?

I already have cited this verse for you several times. God specifically hardens the heart of pharaoh so that he will disobey gods direct command. Maybe you don't think it is sinful to disobey a direct command from God? Is that why you are confused about this?
We have talked about punishment before and I think it would be appropriate to punish pharaoh from keeping slaves... But an appropriate punishment for pharaoh does not include killing other people's children. Why do you seem to think it is justified?

I believe if you will re-read my responses, I literally said that those events offend my sensibilities. It does so due to my ingrained moral compass that in my worldview comes from God. You are also mixing up those events that are by the very hand of God/His actions and natural disasters. Did you mean to do so?

You are contradicting yourself. On one had you are saying God gave you his morality and wrote it into your heart. And on the other you are saying that the things God does (which are therefore moral) bother your heart.
But wait you say... You are not talking ablit things God does...
To the Bible we go once again!

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord , do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 NIV
http://bible.com/111/isa.45.7.NIV

Note many translations don't even give God the courtesy of cleaning it up to say disaster or calamity, they actually translate this word as "evil". Which of course he did because he created and allows Satan to operate.

So now how do you explain that the things God does and allows conflict with the morality he has written on your heart?

Why must it be every non-Hebrew family that was involved in the dying anymore than the killing of the Hebrew babies? Only those non-Hebrew families that had a firstborn male were affected. That means that there would be many that didn't lose anyone in their families.

You are correct. My apologies. It wouldn't have been every family. Do you think that every family that had a male child was involved in killing Hebrew babies? Please also include your explanation for why the firstborn of all the animals were killed.

Now where does the knowledge of God's motivation in your comment come from then? How do you know that even though the Bible clearly implies that the reason for the retribution for killing Hebrew's firstborn males was the motivation for the action of God with the firstborn males of the Egyptians, that it was not?

I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase it?

What basis do you determine when there is a moral choice to be made? For instance, is lying not objectively wrong since the harm it causes usually doesn't produce physical harm?

Lying, when it causes harm (physical or otherwise) is not moral, however it could still be the most moral action in a given situation.

Also, what determines who's morality is the correct or right one? If you claim it is the one that does the least harm does that mean that some harm is not morally wrong or incorrect?

Morality is a social construct to some extent which is why morality is different from one time and place to another.
It means that sometimes causing some harm is the most moral thing to do because it avoids an even greater harm.

If someone comes along and says that their morality allows for harm, who determines he/she is wrong or incorrect. I mean it is immoral according to you to do harm to others but someone else might feel that some harm is acceptable to them.

Fair point. I think morality is a group project. We as a society agree that it is wrong for an adult to have sex with a young child. This has not always been true but morality has shifted by consensus and we now have laws that prohibit such acts because we understand them as harmful.

Would God not know each and every person who had done so?

This is an irrelevant response. Yes God would know but my request was that you justify the statement that all Egyptian families with a male offspring had been involved in the killing of Hebrew children. Do you actually think this is true, how do you know?

In 9:18-21 we see some Egyptians took heed to God's command and who we can assume would do so again.

They did. However this verse that actually is directly part of the plague of the firstborn section directly contradicts what you are suggesting. Please explain your position in light of the following:

There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any person or animal.’ Then you will know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.
Exodus 11:6‭-‬7 NIV
http://bible.com/111/exo.11.6-7.NIV

Feel free to read the context around it if you like, it is talking about the deaths of the firstborn.

Why then did King David claim he would see his own son in heaven after he died?

To comfort himself maybe? But I don't see how it is relevant. It is clear that in 2 Samuel, David is not speaking on behalf of God at that moment. He is a father who has lost a child and is expressing the hope of seeing him again. How do you justify taking this one mortal voice in opposition to what God actually says about the human condition?

What this is saying is that inequity of idolatry will be passed on through those generations. That it is so entrenched in the society that it will take that long for it to be reversed

First I don't know what you mean by "inequity of idolatry" what is it and how is it passed on?
Second it is clear that God actually punishes children for the sin of thier parents :

“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Exodus 20:4‭-‬5 NIV
http://bible.com/111/exo.20.4-5.NIV

So yes we are talking about idolatry in this case. But here is my question. Why are the children being punished specifically for the sins of the parents?
Either sin is passed along to the next generation, or it isn't and God is punishing them for a sin they didn't commit. Which is it?

King David disagrees.

OK so a mortal, not speaking on behalf of God at that moment is in disagreement with the rest of scripture. Why side with him? Because it is comforting to believe that babies go to heaven? I would think you would prefer to side with the biblical authors who are speaking for God.

Knowledge in advance does not mean interference in the events one knows.

Are you kidding me?
In my question to you I specifically said predestination is not the same as knowing ahead of time.
From Merriam Webster:

• : the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed.

Now please answer the question as I put it to you.

Please explain how God predestined my choices and how I also have free will. Please remember that predestination doesn't mean "had knowledge of ahead of time" it means actually insuring that something will happen, it means setting the future, determining fate.etc.
Good luck

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.

And said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

Once could you give me book chapter and verses when you quote from the Bible. It will help me answer your questions more effectively.
Thanks. I will be happy to address these when I know where they are from

It doesn't matter whether she knows good or evil, she understood the command and felt guilt afterward which shows she knew she had done wrong.

Irrelevant Sure she k ew it was wrong afterwards because she had already eaten the fruit and now had knowledge of good and evil. But she was punished for an act that she took before she had that knowledge and that is the point. She was just like a child, without knowledge of good and evil so why is she morally accountable but children are not?

We don't know the definitions that God uses, but we know that all un-justifiable killings are murder. That is the objective moral standard on murder. Rape would be non-consensual sex or sex with someone unable to consent. Lying is not telling the truth. I suppose there are others that we use all the time but have no label for.

1. Murder - Did Satan murder Lot's family?
Did God murder the infants he drowned in the flood?
2. Rape.
Is statutory rape actually rape? As in, can it be considered a rape even if it is consensual? If a 40 year old man gets "consent" from a 5 year old after giving her candy is it rape or not?
Just trying to get a handle on your definitions.
3. Lying. Is it possible to lie by omission? Is it lying if you intentionally decive someone without using words? Are you guilty of lying if you tell someone to go lie in your behalf?

Looking forward to exploring these with you

Where does it say choices are predestine

Predestination means that events are fixed ahead of time. Individual events are shapped by choices so if the events (the results of choices) are predestined, then the choices are as well. As such all the verses we have already cited about predestination are examples of this principle.

The Holy Spirit has many motivations. For instance we can be led to believe something from it to bring us to understanding of something else and then be led later to new understanding and a new belief of that original belief.

So when you pray to the holy spirit for guidance, it responds by telling you half truths?

There are many things in our own lives that may seem inconsistent but in reality are only inconsistent due to a lack of knowledge.

For example?

I believe the Bible to be inspired by God but I also understand that it must be viewed and understood from the times it was written and that there is translation issues.

So did God also inspire the bits that got added? The forgeries too?

Like I said, I am not sure enough of the text nor having sufficient knowledge to determine your argument.

That is fine and I appreciate your honesty. I hope you are not using ignorance as a refuge to not confront a difficult question but that is not what we are asking here.
I will ask my actual question again:

So if I could show you, hypothetically, that no global flood ever happened, how would that modify your belief in the Bible or in God?

Your confusion is understandable. The Bible informs me but God is from where my position is confirmed.

So the Bible tells you things but sometimes it is wrong, and you know this because God tells you directly?

I think it is a paradox

Calling it a paradox is not a get out of jail free card. A paradox is still a logical contradiction, therefore your notion that free will and predestination can co-exist is logical impossibility. As you have said in other posts God can't create a square circle because it is logically impossible. So either predestination does not exist and the Bible is simply wrong about its existence.
Or
There is no such thing as free will...

So which is it?

Why do you think this is the case

Because the Bible says so as we have already established. But here you go again:
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Romans 8:29 NIV
http://bible.com/111/rom.8.29.NIV

There are of course more but this is a good one. Notice how foreknew and predestined are distinct items in this verse, showing that yes he knows ahead of time but more than this, he actually predestined the results (thier salvation and sanctification) as well.

Where does it say that He doesn't do it for all people?

As far as I know there is no single verse that explicitly says this. However it can be extrapolated. We know that narrow is the way and few are they that find it... Meaning something less than half of people make it to heaven.
From that verse I just cited we know that God was actively involved in choosing who, he predestined some people to be saved.
We also know that all those who God calls will be saved:
All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
John 6:37‭-‬40 NIV
http://bible.com/111/jhn.6.37-40.NIV

So Jesus will get all (every single one) of the people God sends to him. God sends him the ones God has elected for salvation. Not everyone is saved.
Put this all together and you can see that God does not call everyone and give them those nudges towards himself that you are saying he does.

So did Christ just die for the sins of those you think are predestined to believe

I don't know what they were thinking when they invented that one. If I had to guess I would say that Jesus was meant to cover all sin but they knew that since the human heart is inherently evil and can never choose God on its own, that God would only act to call some hearts back to himself.

First and foremost the law was not given with the intention that man could live by it. It was given to show they couldn't and needed a Savior.

Please cite the old Testament verses where this is described. Better yet if those verses could be ones where God is talking that would be great.... I'll wait

Yes, we should always follow Jesus's lead and We should love others as we love ourselves and love God with all our heart and mind.

Interssting that you say we should follow his lead and then skip right on past the verses where Jesus actually says to obey the law and the prophets. Why did you skip over those and just go to the love God and everyone else? They are part of the same speech after all!

Most contradictions are mainly from misunderstanding the verses by non-believers, and it is utterly amazing to me that the Bible has like 40 authors from all walks of life, writing over a period of 2,000 years and three continents written in three different languages being consistent in message. I find that to have anything that consistent with that many variables is incredibly astounding.

I agree with the first bit. Often the alleged contradictions are simply not there and lots of atheis4sotes that have these listed are not very rigorous or charitable in thier readings. As for the agreement that is there I don't find it all that remarkable since the texts we have preserved were specifically chosen and One of the criteria was that they agree with each other.
That said my actual question wasn't, are you impressed with how much the texts agree, it was how do you make sense of the times when it doesn't. Did God not care if his holy book got things right?

Now Athee, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You want to use Scripture to prove your points and then claim foul when I do.

This is illogical. I use scripture to point out inconsistencies. This only works because you claim that the Bible is true. If you want to conceed that the Bible is just a human made book with no special inspiration then I will stop using it to make my case. As long as you insist it is divinely inspired I can point out problems.
You are welcome to use scripture to make your case but as you do you need to refer that I don't think it is inspired.

My position is that you are using the Bible to claim that God is immoral, that God predestines people to hell, that we don't have free will and so on. Now whether or not the story of Noah is true, it goes with the argument within the Bible itself. All people after the flood come from Noah. All have knowledge of Yahweh. Period, case closed. The other people were not other people until they chose to reject God.

So now the flood is global again? OK well even if you were correct about that (and you are not) by the time God gets to choosing a team it seems that the other groups had forgotten about him. How does this make it any better that he only chooses some of his image bearers to love and lead but not others?

Does it say they tried? Did it say they went up to fight and lost? Did it say that were defeated in battle? No. It doesn't say they went to battle at all. If they would have they would have written about it. They were defeated in other battles and told of it.

This is sounding increasingly desperate....
And I quote from the Bible once again :
The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.
Judges 1:19 NIV
http://bible.com/111/jdg.1.19.NIV
In a chapter devoted to the military conquering of neighbours, in a book about same, what do you think this verse means when it says they were unable to drive out the people from the plains? Did they try to swat them with fly shatters? Offer to give them all a lift in an F-150?
It obviously means drive them out by military means and they failed.
Good try though

God would.

God would what? This line of questioning is not about knowing if it is true love or not. I have no idea what "God would" has to do with my question. Please explain

I don't believe you have anything to show that God doesn't in fact give everyone some kind of sign that they attribute to God and either move towards God or away.

This was summarized above.

You have also not shown that God could have created us with free choice and still make sure everyone chooses Him

Sure I have, you are making the mistake of thinking that the choice about salvation is the only choice we have. It is actually really simple. He makes that one choice for us, that we will love and worship him, then gives us free will to choose how we will do that and all other things that are not salvation related.
Explain how this is a logical impossibility or conceed that it is a valid possibility.

Why then do you spend time and effort arguing against something you don't believe exists. I don't spend time or effort on people who believe in fairies. Nor do I spend time arguing against those who believe that aliens exist. So why do you think it is so important to you to come here and argue against a God you don't think exists?

I enjoy it, sometimes I am able to move people off positions that have harmful repercussions for themselves and others...and I enjoy it

We are talking about here in the US right? If we are as I thought, the Bible most certainly did not condone the slavery of the states and the Bible was not used to support it other than people completely ignoring what it says.

Is this meant to be in jest or are you seriously proposing that bible verses were not used by Christian slave owners in the south to justify having slaves?

Were else did the slaves come from if not from being indentured or from war since they couldn't be forced into slavery by kidnapping them? And you claim I am coming across as disingenuous! Nice.

I apologize maybe it was not disingenuous, maybe just ignorance of the scriptures. I was ignorant myself as a believer because it is easier to just stick to the new Testament and the feel good verses. But once again I go back to your Bible to point out that you are mistaken.
Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. “ ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Leviticus 25:42‭, ‬44‭-‬46 NIV
http://bible.com/111/lev.25.42-46.NIV

So there you have it. God flat out says you can buy slaves. Not only that but he does so knowing that owning slaves and the treatment of them is ruthless.

Can we stop pretending now that God doesn't Co done slavery and that they were all helpless refugees?

Excellent! And now how do you justify your earlier statement that you think slavery is immoral, God wrote this in your heart you said, but here is God condoning slavery.... Discuss...

I've not said that beating was permissible, and given as sex partners is a little like misrepresenting the case as they were not used and tossed away as one could if they were just "sex partners" like in other cultures but they w

You haven't said beating a slave is permissible because such a position would be reprehensible.... But God doesn't seem to agree with you in that.
Second does the fact that a slave girl, given as property to a man by her master, can receive the benefits of being a wife after she is used, make it OK in your book?

Do you believe that you are arguing any less with assertions? God works through the natural world, our hands are His hands most of the time

How convenient....

If God told the Hebrews not to have slaves and to set them all free what do you think would have happened to a society that was completely entrenched in that life style. Even in the case of slavery in the US, there were damaging aspects of freeing the slaves but nothing near what would have happened then. Women and children starving, left out in the weather with nothing or no one to provide their needs, people falling into the hands of a more cruel and horrendous people.

This is laughable. You seem to be live that your God is almost entirely powerless! All things are possible with God... Except reforming a corrupt culture of course. I have given you logically possible ways God could have dealt with this, you have yet to demonstrate that my solutions are logically impossible or in some way inconsistent with God.

The fact that the Jews are a group of people separate and distinct people, as shown when they were all targeted to be eliminated by Hitler.

Please prove that all the individuals you include in that category "the jews" can trace thier lineage back, unbroken and undiluted, to the time of Moses.

I'll wait...

Are you claiming that most Christian's don't agree with the Passover being a representation of the coming Savior?

Please read my responses more carefully and try to respond to the points I am actually making. I said that religious Jews, (the people you think God chose and spoke to, the ones who's scriptures we are discussing in this case) do not agree with you.

Do you really believe they believe God condoned slavery anyway? I don't. The fact that we have a deep moral intuition that something is wrong is one of the strongest points in favor of moral objectivity which is ingrained within us from God.

Adresse above, looking forward to your explanation of why "you may buy slaves from the nations around you" is not condoning.

I'm sure God will be very gracious towards your solutions when you are face to face.

Lol

Your morality based on causing harm isn't objective nor does it determine what is moral.

It isn't universally objective no. It determines what is situational moral, which can often be objective (but not always)

Only something that is objectively moral with a standard from which to start can be truly moral or immoral.

Please prove this assertion.

All you can really say is that according to your morality which is based on harm you determine that God was immoral. I say you are wrong. Who determines which of us it right?

Based on my understanding of moraliry,the actions of the character described in the Bible are morally wrong. You think they are morally correct but can't justify this position except to say that there simply just has to be some way of making them good... Even if you can't think of what this could be. Which of us is correct? Who decides?I guess we will just have to keep discussing the evidence we have and try our best to use reason to make those determinations.

 

[Davian]

...

The reason you don't understand this is due to not understanding God's nature. Yes, God is loving but He is also Holy and righteous. He has to provide justice against the injustices mankind does.

What is this 'justice' you speak of? Anything goes, as long as you believe?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You are under Satan's influence if you are not under God's.

Obviously. But I asked whether this means I have chosen to be deceived by Satan or whether it just kinda happens.

Common-sense and spiritual sense is not the same according to Scripture. What may seem like common sense to you and what actually is being said can be very far apart in a spiritual sense. Jesus Himself said that His second coming was not known by Himself but only the father. You have neglected to show how Jesus could be talking about the second coming when He didn't even know when that would happen. The disciples knew that Jesus said HE didn't know when He would return so if there was some question of that, they would have asked how He knew some of them would be alive at the time. They didn't.

You've condensed several points from my post and only responded to one. And you seem to have once again missed the point for the one you did respond to. Let's start with that. I'll try to be very clear this time.

Your argument: Jesus said only God knows the exact date of his return, so he could not have been talking about his return in Luke 9:27 when he said some of his audience would be alive to witness it.

My point: We agree that Luke 21 is talking about the Second coming. But Luke 21:32 says "This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." Jesus is stating that this generation (whichever generation you think that is, see below) will witness the second coming even though he said he didn't know when that would be. This completely refutes your argument that Luke 9:27 can't be about the second coming because Jesus didn't know when that would be. Understand? This doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but it does dismantle that particular argument you're making.

Now, I'd appreciate it if you directly addressed this point you glossed over:
The article you link does say that major changes in idea or subject are generally (but not always) broken by a blank space. The fact that Jesus's prophecy and the transfiguration are in separate chapters does not support your claim that they refer to the same thing. In fact the article you linked suggests that they are indeed referring to different things and that in Mark where they appear together it is simply an example of major ideas not being divided up as sometimes happened.

You also declined to provide a real example of where Jesus talks about something imminent as if it were a long way in the future so I assume you concede your inability to do so.

Finally, you have still not provided any reasoning or scriptural support for your belief that "this generation" refers not to the audience but, rather misleadingly, to a generation 2000 years in the future. It's all well and good to assert that common sense and the spiritual sense are not necessarily the same, but this is insufficient to defend your position. You also have to support the position that the actual meaning is different from the obvious meaning. So please provide your support here. As discussed above, your argument about Jesus not knowing the date of his return (and could not therefore claim that a given generation would be alive to see it) is refuted by Luke 21:32, so in fact I have shown that "Jesus could be talking about the second coming when He didn't even know when that would happen". Unless you don't think Luke 21 is talking about the second coming? I look forward to a more substantial response. I understand there are more important demands on your time and I would prefer that you take longer to respond than having you condense and ignore so many points.

The reason you don't understand this is due to not understanding God's nature. Yes, God is loving but He is also Holy and righteous. He has to provide justice against the injustices mankind does.

Was that you explaining God's nature to me? Because it didn't provide any answer the question I asked. How is it loving to set up a system where most of his beloved creations are made predestined to sin and be damned? How is it loving to create the majority of human souls to follow their predestined path to damnation and then punish them when they do follow that path God laid out for them before they ever existed?

How do you know it isn't true? He doesn't subvert free will He either cements it as a punishment in judgement or takes life before judgement is needed. Why would He set up a system where free will is necessary if it wasn't important to Him? He shows mercy and He shows judgement. Perhaps His love of children is greater in this situation than their later free will.

You agreed that when God hardened Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh could not in that moment have chosen otherwise. This means that in that moment, regardless of past or future actions, Pharaoh's free will was suspended by God's will that his heart be hardened. In fact, as Athée has pointed out, the fact that God had to intervene in that moment means that Pharaoh's will in that moment was to let the Jews go, but in that moment God overrode that free will. It doesn't matter what you think Pharaoh would have done later. The point is that in that moment God overrode Pharaoh's ability to make a choice of his own free will. Thus we have proof that God is sometimes willing to override our free will.

In any case, you didn't actually respond to the point. The point was that, contrary to what you claimed, having his creations choose to be with him is not the most important thing to God because he is willing to reap children's souls before they have the chance to choose.

There is no rejection or acceptance to take away.

Perhaps if I make the reasoning more explicit your responses will be more pertinent.

Premise: Free will (in this context) is the ability to choose to accept or reject God. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please explain why.

I said it was possible. Clearly, there are probably many more ideas that could be possible.

Cool. But you didn't answer the question. Here it is again. Can the lack of evidence for something be considered to support the idea that something existed but was eliminated? I say no. Do you agree or disagree?

How can it be a cop out when it is consistent with Christian theology? Now while you might not agree with His solution and find it "lazy" or even an optimal solution preserving life is not God's goal. God's goal is to have as many accept Him and co-Exist with Him. Preservation for the people of that time would have altered the ability for people in the near and far future to have salvation.

It's a cop out because you're merely saying that God is omniscient so it must have been the right decision, even though you can't actually provide support for why it was the best decision. Tell me, how would it have impeded the salvation of future people to have all the putative drownees plopped onto their own planet? Or shifted slightly out of phase with our plane of existence so they could never interfere or influence others? Or had their hearts and minds opened by divine intervention? We know from your insistence that all children go to Heaven that choosing God is not required for salvation if God really wants you saved., so why not do that? But no, just drown them all because I don't really care about those ones.

Well, we have been down this road before. IF truth is absolute and universal from where does it arise?

It's just how things are. Why do we need to invoke God to say that, as far as anyone has ever experienced, something can't be both A and Not A?

How does Science give us the best understanding of truth? In Christianity, faith does not sit alone. Reason is the foundation of the faith. There are indeed a vast array of religions and beliefs within them but there is not a vast arrays of truth in the religions or beliefs. As with any endeavor that Humans partake we search for the best explanation that aligns with reality, that there are hundreds of millions of explanations in the world does not negate the truth of some and that some are most certainly false. We walk in search of the truth and we can know by comparing our beliefs with reality.

That's the thing though. Everyone is comparing their religious beliefs to reality and the vast majority of people are completely convinced that their beliefs comport with reality. There's no way to actually establish which of the hundreds of religions or the thousands of sects of each religion is actually right (Atheist Pro-tip: none of them are!). In contrast, science actually does winnow out the nonsense. Who knows how close we are to the truth, but we do know that we get closer and closer every time science allows us to discard an idea that doesn't end up fitting the evidence as well as another idea. The same is not true of faith. Otherwise we should expect to see religions and the innumerable subsets of those religions gradually collapsing as their adherents discovered through reason that their beliefs did not align with reality. That's not what we see.

You are asserting that we can be human and sinless but have given no support for that assertion.

My argument is that God could have created us to be sinless. I base this on the assumption that God is omnipotent. I was under the impression that the only limitations to God's omnipotence were doing things that conflicted with his nature or things which were logical impossibilities (e.g. square circle). So it falls to you to explain why a sinless creation is either in conflict with God's nature or a logical impossibility. So far you have simply asserted this. Can you actually provide some argumentation? If not, then you cannot reasonably claim that a sinless created being is impossible. And again, you haven't supported the assertion that omniscience is required for sinlessness.

You like to use God's omnipotent nature to bring accusations of His motivations but dismiss or ignore the other facets of His being. His Holy nature and righteousness as well as His goal for as many as possible to co-exist with Him of their own free will.

As discussed above, we know based on the whole "all children go to heaven" argument of yours that having his creations choose him of their own free will is not necessary for salvation. Plus he sometimes subverts free will. So your explanation does not suffice to explain away mass genocide as the best possible option.

Everyone of the majority of souls that will be populating hell had the same opportunity as the ones who will not.

They may have the same choice, but they don't have the same opportunity because God foreknows and predestines those who will make the right choice. He creates the majority of his children suffer damnation. How is this loving? Not a rhetorical question. I want you to explain how this comports with the concept of a loving parent.

I guess we will wait and see what comes about in the next couple of decades as we find more and more about the Precambrian. I will concede that as of right now, there is no evidence that angiosperms were actually in the Precambrian but then again, no one believed that plants were either. It was more parsimonious at the time to conclude that there were no plants possible during the Precambrian and we now know that was false.

That's not much of a concession considering we both knew that was true already. As you point out, the most parsimonious theory isn't necessarily the most correct, but I don't think there is a better principle for choosing between competing hypotheses. How would you make such decisions without applying parsimony?
You didn't address the point that not knowing the all the details of angiosperms evolution doesn't make all theories about angiosperm evolution equally parsimonious. I assume that you concede this point.

You also didn't address the point that the rough agreement between fossil and molecular evidence supports the assumption that the fossil record actually does give us useful information about angiosperm evolution. I assume that you concede this point.

You also didn't address the the point that any uncertainty about angiosperm evolution is irrelevant to your argument that angiosperms evolved in the Precambrian, went extinct and then re-evolved 400 million years later. I assume you concede this point.

You also didn't address the point that your argument about Precambrian plants suggesting the existence of Precambiran angiosperms is identical to my argument that Paleozoic tetrapods suggest the existence of Paleozoic horses and that if the latter is not convincing then neither is the former. I assume you concede this point.

You also didn't provide any quotes from the paper you posted that support your claims. I assume then that either such quotes don't exist or you don't actually have access to the paper.

All living things of the time were in the water which is what he wrote.

Incorrect. Genesis does not state that "All living things of the time were in the water" (feel free to cite the verse that says this). It says that "God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it". So please explain in detail your reasoning and provide scriptural support for your position. Why should we think that when the author wrote "all living things" in the water he really meant "the things that were living in the water during the Cambrian"? In other words, how do you justify interpreting the words "all living things" in the water to mean a subset (those that were around in the Cambrian) of living things in the water?

I just noticed this on re-reading the passage too: it refers to the great creatures of the sea. The biggest Cambrian animals (certain species of anomalocaridid, if you're interested) were only about a meter long. Some estimates made from very fragmentary material give a maximum size of two meters. Even if there were two meter long anomalocaridids, this hardly seems like a "great creature of the sea". There are plenty of humans who are bigger than that. It sounds much more like it is meant to refer to whales and sharks and whatnot. Bad news for your interpretation. Thoughts?

Also, you have not supplied any support for the assertion that Genesis 1 records a chronological sequence from the "beginning to the present time". I assume that you cannot supply such support.

This doesn't take me to a post but to a page and so I have no idea what this is pointing me to.

Interesting. I clicked it and it took me directly to post 451. That said, are you aware that this forum has a search function? You can search the exact text I quoted ("I have an article somewhere that claims that very thing") and set it to search for only posts made by Oncedeceived and search only in this thread. That's how I found it. Or you could have used the control (or command if you have a Mac) key in combination with the F key to search for that specific phrase on the page my link took you to. Just some helpful tips going forward so you can find your own posts as well as those of others should the need arise instead of relying on others to do it for you. Makes things more efficient.