PDA

View Full Version : Unbeliever impressions of BR X debate



avatar382
August 2nd, 2005, 11:29 AM
Which other resident TOL pagans/non-theists/non-Christians are reading BR X with interest?

Personally, I have felt since my deconversion that there is Biblical evidence and support for both the Open View and exhaustive foreknowlege. In fact, the issue of free will it's related aspects was the very subjects that initally had me questioning the Bible. I personally believe the subject of BR X is at the heart of one of the its (The Bible's) largest contradictions!

Do you guys think the BR X debaters will end up proving the Bible fallible by virtue of their biblically accurate, but opposing arguments? I'm watching for it!

Note: I started a thread here because I did not want to risk hijacking the "peanut gallery" thread, which seems to be a Christian-only perspective of the debate...

lovemeorhateme
August 2nd, 2005, 11:33 AM
Which other resident TOL pagans/non-theists/non-Christians are reading BR X with interest?

Personally, I have felt since my deconversion that there is Biblical evidence and support for both the Open View and exhaustive foreknowlege. In fact, the issue of free will it's related aspects was the very subjects that initally had me questioning the Bible. I personally believe the subject of BR X is at the heart of one of the its (The Bible's) largest contradictions!

Do you guys think the BR X debaters will end up proving the Bible fallible by virtue of their biblically accurate, but opposing arguments? I'm watching for it!

Note: I started a thread here because I did not want to risk hijacking the "peanut gallery" thread, which seems to be a Christian-only perspective of the debate...

I'm unsure. I am a Christian, yes, but I still think something very interesting could come out of this argument. I will be watching with interest to see :)

Pete

allsmiles
August 2nd, 2005, 11:36 AM
too early to tell

godrulz
August 2nd, 2005, 11:52 AM
Some thinking philosophers have rejected classic concepts of God because they feel it is incoherent. A caricature/straw man of God is not worthy of who He is.

Calvinism is one branch of Christianity. I would have trouble seeing God's love and holiness as impartial if I believed in determinism. It would also be problematic for self-evident free will.

Fortunately, Open Theism provides a more biblical, coherent view of God. It does reconcile the issues surrounding free will, sovereignty, and omniscience. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity and logical contradiction. With this excuse out of the way, it is one less stumbling block for those who think God is responsible for evil (theodicy) due to the distortion of Calvinism. Calvinism is not the end all and be all of biblical Christianity. Though they are Christians, there is an alternate view that will not stumble thinking people.

Regardless, most atheists reject God for moral vs intellectual reasons. They are still without excuse (Rom. 1).

Zakath
August 2nd, 2005, 12:55 PM
avatar382,

I'm waiting to read a few posts by both sides before making any judgements. I have my own opinion on the orthodoxy of the Open View, but I don't want to comment further until I've actually seen some of what the lads have to say.

fool
August 2nd, 2005, 01:05 PM
Regardless, most atheists reject God for moral vs intellectual reasons. They are still without excuse (Rom. 1).
Care to elaborate on that?

Lucky
August 2nd, 2005, 02:08 PM
Personally, I have felt since my deconversion that there is Biblical evidence and support for both the Open View and exhaustive foreknowlege. In fact, the issue of free will it's related aspects was the very subjects that initally had me questioning the Bible.
I can see how that could happen.

(Hopefully yall don't mind me posting here. I, for one, am interested in what unbelievers think about the issue.)

OMEGA
August 2nd, 2005, 02:41 PM
What else is there but the Bible ?????

1. Evolution has been disproved.

Flora and Fauna are too interrelated to have developed on their own.

2. Human beings are far too Complex and Different to have come from Monkeys.

3. The Bible has been proven Historically and Prophetically correct.

4. The Bible offers IMMORTALITY as a Spirit Being.

No other Religion offers the ability to Live Forever in a Glorious Immortal Body
and the ability to Travel through the Universe .

avatar382
August 2nd, 2005, 02:48 PM
Some thinking philosophers have rejected classic concepts of God because they feel it is incoherent. A caricature/straw man of God is not worthy of who He is.

Calvinism is one branch of Christianity. I would have trouble seeing God's love and holiness as impartial if I believed in determinism. It would also be problematic for self-evident free will.

Fortunately, Open Theism provides a more biblical, coherent view of God. It does reconcile the issues surrounding free will, sovereignty, and omniscience. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity and logical contradiction. With this excuse out of the way, it is one less stumbling block for those who think God is responsible for evil (theodicy) due to the distortion of Calvinism. Calvinism is not the end all and be all of biblical Christianity. Though they are Christians, there is an alternate view that will not stumble thinking people.

Regardless, most atheists reject God for moral vs intellectual reasons. They are still without excuse (Rom. 1).

In general, I agree with you! (except about the being without excuse part ;) )

The problem is, in my opinion, the open view is not consistent with the bulk of the text of the Bible. I feel that Calvinism, on the whole much more consistant.

I feel that the open view is the result of Christian theologians who do not like the unpleasant consequences of Calvinism, and it's inherent injustice, and so the open view was born as a rationlization to reconcile, as you said, the issues surrounding free will, sovereignty, and omniscience.

Of course, as Zakath mentioned in this thread, I will read the debate with great interest, in hopes of learning something new!

avatar382
August 2nd, 2005, 02:50 PM
What else is there but the Bible ?????

1. Evolution has been disproved.

Flora and Fauna are too interrelated to have developed on their own.

2. Human beings are far too Complex and Different to have come from Monkeys.

3. The Bible has been proven Historically and Prophetically correct.

4. The Bible offers IMMORTALITY as a Spirit Being.

No other Religion offers the ability to Live Forever in a Glorious Immortal Body
and the ability to Travel through the Universe .

Hi Omega,

Lets try to keep this thread squarely on the consequences of Open view vs. exhaustive foreknowledge.

I believe the last thing TOL needs is another 50 page thread on the general validity of Christianity, focusing on evolution...

PureX
August 2nd, 2005, 03:31 PM
I think it's a silly question and a silly debate. It's just one guy's idea about God butting heads with another. I have nothing against anyone's idea of God, I just think it's silly when people try to rationalize their idea of God as "the truth" by debating scripture. It's silly enough that people don't realize that their idea of God is just an idea, and is not God. But it's even more silly (to me) when they try to rationalize their pretenses by debating the meaning of ancient religious texts - as if somehow that would clear it all up! *smile*

You asked what I think .... that's what I think.

OMEGA
August 2nd, 2005, 03:38 PM
TURBO - deconversion ????

You used to Broadcast the Bible all over the place.

What happened ?

Poly
August 2nd, 2005, 03:43 PM
TURBO - deconversion ????

You used to Broadcast the Bible all over the place.

What happened ?

That's not Turbo.
Avatar382 just has the word turbo in his avatar.

There is only one Turbo!

godrulz
August 2nd, 2005, 06:04 PM
Care to elaborate on that?

Some evolutionists have said the evidence is weak, but if they admit that there is a Creator, He would also be a holy Judge. This would mean that they would have to change their lives rather than continue living selfishly or sinfully. There would be moral accountability. It is easier to live for Self than to admit there is a holy God. Christianity is intellectually defensible and will stand up to investigation. If there is no God, we can eat, drink, and be merry. If there is a God, we are obligated to put Him first since He is the most valuable being in the universe and qualified to rule our lives.

Romans 1 says that unbelievers suppress the truth by their wickedness. Creation makes it plain that there is a Creator.

Clete
August 2nd, 2005, 06:07 PM
Which other resident TOL pagans/non-theists/non-Christians are reading BR X with interest?

Personally, I have felt since my deconversion that there is Biblical evidence and support for both the Open View and exhaustive foreknowlege. In fact, the issue of free will it's related aspects was the very subjects that initally had me questioning the Bible. I personally believe the subject of BR X is at the heart of one of the its (The Bible's) largest contradictions!

Do you guys think the BR X debaters will end up proving the Bible fallible by virtue of their biblically accurate, but opposing arguments? I'm watching for it!

Note: I started a thread here because I did not want to risk hijacking the "peanut gallery" thread, which seems to be a Christian-only perspective of the debate...
I'm sure you'll get out of it exactly what you expect to get out of it. :rolleyes:

fool
August 2nd, 2005, 06:25 PM
Some evolutionists have said the evidence is weak, but if they admit that there is a Creator, He would also be a holy Judge. This would mean that they would have to change their lives rather than continue living selfishly or sinfully. There would be moral accountability. It is easier to live for Self than to admit there is a holy God. Christianity is intellectually defensible and will stand up to investigation. If there is no God, we can eat, drink, and be merry. If there is a God, we are obligated to put Him first since He is the most valuable being in the universe and qualified to rule our lives.

Romans 1 says that unbelievers suppress the truth by their wickedness. Creation makes it plain that there is a Creator.
Why do you posit that evolutionists live selfishly or sinfully?
Why do you posit that it would be easier to live for self than to say there is a holy God?
Let me ask you a question Godrulz. Why do you think it's easy being an Atheist?
Why do you posit that if there is no God we can eat drink and be merry?
Shouldn't we do that either way?
Do you understand that someone that dosen't believe in an afterlife will take this life more seriously than someone that thinks they just have to profess a faith and show up to church 3 or 4 times a year?
Do you think that it's possible that an Atheist might lead a more rightous life than a Christian?
Do you think that the things we do in life echo in eternity?

fool
August 2nd, 2005, 06:27 PM
I'm sure you'll get out of it exactly what you expect to get out of it. :rolleyes:
What are you gonna get out of it Clete?
If your position gets creamed are you gonna switch?

godrulz
August 2nd, 2005, 06:30 PM
Why do you posit that evolutionists live selfishly or sinfully?
Why do you posit that it would be easier to live for self than to say there is a holy God?
Let me ask you a question Godrulz. Why do you think it's easy being an Atheist?
Why do you posit that if there is no God we can eat drink and be merry?
Shouldn't we do that either way?
Do you understand that someone that dosen't believe in an afterlife will take this life more seriously than someone that thinks they just have to profess a faith and show up to church 3 or 4 times a year?
Do you think that it's possible that an Atheist might lead a more rightous life than a Christian?
Do you think that the things we do in life echo in eternity?


I do not wish to stereotype atheists.

There are two options: we can make God boss of our life, or we can live supremely for Self (even if we are not so bad...we still live moment by moment as if there is no God, even if we intellectually believe in God).

There are two kinds of people:

Those who say to God: "Thy will be done."

Those to whom God says, "OK, thy will be done."

Clete
August 2nd, 2005, 06:47 PM
What are you gonna get out of it Clete?
If your position gets creamed are you gonna switch?
I know better.

I've been around the issue and Bob Enyart long enough to know who is going to win the debate. The fun is only in watching it unfold and perhaps learning a new tactic by which to cream other Calvinists in future debates.

Resting in Him,
Clete

OMEGA
August 2nd, 2005, 07:16 PM
382 and deconversionists.

Maybe you were not called in the first place ?

Or maybe you are of those people who do not have any depth of Soil and give up easily.

Or maybe you don't realize what you are Throwing away.

Oh well, you guys are going to be assimilated later than the rest of us Christians.

We will wait for you from the Kingdom.

Mr 4:5 And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit.

Mark 4:14 The sower soweth the word.
15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.
16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;
17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.
18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,
19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

fool
August 2nd, 2005, 07:30 PM
I do not wish to stereotype atheists.

There are two options: we can make God boss of our life, or we can live supremely for Self (even if we are not so bad...we still live moment by moment as if there is no God, even if we intellectually believe in God).

There are two kinds of people:

Those who say to God: "Thy will be done."

Those to whom God says, "OK, thy will be done."
That's all you got, A cliche' ?
Sorry about that comment.
lets try this.
For those that say "Thy will be done"
By what standard do they determine God's will?
Why are two Christians having a debate if God's will is clear?
The debate seems to go like this:
Theist: God is absolute!
Atheist: Absolutly subjective to your interpertion of him!
Here at the battle royal we see two people who agree on the truth of a book, yet are having a formal arguement over what it means!
It's got subjective written all over it.

fool
August 2nd, 2005, 07:32 PM
I know better.

I've been around the issue and Bob Enyart long enough to know who is going to win the debate. The fun is only in watching it unfold and perhaps learning a new tactic by which to cream other Calvinists in future debates.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Sounds like you got your mind made up already.

Freak
August 2nd, 2005, 07:36 PM
I know better.

I've been around the issue and Bob Enyart long enough to know who is going to win the debate. The fun is only in watching it unfold and perhaps learning a new tactic by which to cream other Calvinists in future debates.Is that what this debate is about? Learning tactics to "cream" other believers? :rolleyes:

godrulz
August 2nd, 2005, 08:04 PM
That's all you got, A cliche' ?
Sorry about that comment.
lets try this.
For those that say "Thy will be done"
By what standard do they determine God's will?
Why are two Christians having a debate if God's will is clear?
The debate seems to go like this:
Theist: God is absolute!
Atheist: Absolutly subjective to your interpertion of him!
Here at the battle royal we see two people who agree on the truth of a book, yet are having a formal arguement over what it means!
It's got subjective written all over it.

Our interpretations are subjective at times since we are not perfect. We generally agree on the essentials, but can be divided on peripheral issues. The nature of this debate will also go beyond explicit Scripture to issues of philosophy and logic (modal, etc.). It is the glory of a king to search out a matter. It beats sticking one's head in the sand like many atheists do.

The Word of God is absolute truth. It can be known objectively. Our subjectivity is a reflection on us (prone to preconceived ideas, etc.), not on the inherent revelation of God.

The Psalmist has said that the fool says in his heart that there is no God. The Hebrew word refers to a moral fool, the ungodly, not necessarily to one's belief system. Most North Americans believe in God with their head, but live as if He does not exist. You may be an intellectual atheist, but they are functional atheists/agnostics (or pseudo-theists).

godrulz
August 2nd, 2005, 08:05 PM
Is that what this debate is about? Learning tactics to "cream" other believers? :rolleyes:


What's wrong with more heat than light? ;)

Clete
August 2nd, 2005, 08:12 PM
Is that what this debate is about? Learning tactics to "cream" other believers? :rolleyes:
Well, not directly no. But I learn what I can when I can, as should you.

Clete
August 2nd, 2005, 08:17 PM
Sounds like you got your mind made up already.
Well, I'm not apposed to being proven wrong if that's what you mean. I try to be as intellectually honest as I can be. It's just that after a while a pattern begins to emerge where people show up to debate Bob Enyart and get pulverized beyond recognition. Before long you just sort of expect it to happen.

Let's just say that I'll be shocked and awed beyond description if Bob gets his hat handed to him on this one. Whether such an occurrence would lead me to change my mind about open theism depends on how and why it happened.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Freak
August 2nd, 2005, 08:20 PM
Well, not directly no. But I learn what I can when I can, as should you. Perhaps you'll learn something from Dr. Sam. Possible? :think:

godrulz
August 2nd, 2005, 08:23 PM
Perhaps you'll learn something from Dr. Sam. Possible? :think:

I am sure we can, but it will likely be a regurgitation of Calvinistic ideas or common objections to Open Theism. Most anti-OT books I have read misunderstand or misrepresent the view..e.g. they confuse it with Process Theology/finite godism.

Freak
August 2nd, 2005, 08:26 PM
I am sure we can, but it will likely be a regurgitation of Calvinistic ideas or common objections to Open Theism. Most anti-OT books I have read misunderstand or misrepresent the view..e.g. they confuse it with Process Theology/finite godism. Alittle unfair to say the least. :down:

fool
August 2nd, 2005, 08:50 PM
Our interpretations are subjective at times since we are not perfect. We generally agree on the essentials, but can be divided on peripheral issues. The nature of this debate will also go beyond explicit Scripture to issues of philosophy and logic (modal, etc.). It is the glory of a king to search out a matter. It beats sticking one's head in the sand like many atheists do.
What's the difference between a Christian with his head in the sand and an Atheist with his head in the sand?Or a Jew with his head in the sand? Or a Muslim with his head in the sand? Or a Hindu? Or a Buhddist? Or a Wiccan? Or one of them New Age Hippie Crystal Grippers?


The Word of God is absolute truth. It can be known objectively. Our subjectivity is a reflection on us (prone to preconceived ideas, etc.), not on the inherent revelation of God.

How can we know something objectively if we are subject to subjectivity?


The Psalmist has said that the fool says in his heart that there is no God. The Hebrew word refers to a moral fool, the ungodly, not necessarily to one's belief system. Most North Americans believe in God with their head, but live as if He does not exist. You may be an intellectual atheist, but they are functional atheists/agnostics (or pseudo-theists).
What about the functional theists (or pseudo- atheists)?

godrulz
August 2nd, 2005, 08:57 PM
Alittle unfair to say the least. :down:

Prejudice. I apologize. Wait and see.

Clete
August 2nd, 2005, 09:34 PM
Perhaps you'll learn something from Dr. Sam. Possible? :think:
Already have. :up:

Clete
August 3rd, 2005, 07:47 AM
What are you gonna get out of it Clete?
If your position gets creamed are you gonna switch?
Okay, if Bob converts to Hinduism, I'll drop open theism.

Balder
August 3rd, 2005, 08:05 AM
What's the difference between a Christian with his head in the sand and an Atheist with his head in the sand?Or a Jew with his head in the sand? Or a Muslim with his head in the sand? Or a Hindu? Or a Buhddist? Or a Wiccan? Or one of them New Age Hippie Crystal Grippers?
The Atheist is practicing for the big dirt nap.

The Jew is looking for water from a stone.

The Muslim is about to get stoned.

The Hindu can do it for one hour without breathing.

The Buddhist is at peace, dirt or no dirt.

The Wiccan is looking for worms or toads.

The New Ager is just feeling the ley lines, man.

avatar382
August 3rd, 2005, 08:11 AM
The Atheist is practicing for the big dirt nap.

The Jew is looking for water from a stone.

The Muslim is about to get stoned.

The Hindu can do it for one hour without breathing.

The Buddhist is at peace, dirt or no dirt.

The Wiccan is looking for worms or toads.

The New Ager is just feeling the ley lines, man.


:rotfl:

Zakath
August 3rd, 2005, 08:39 AM
The Atheist is practicing for the big dirt nap.

The Jew is looking for water from a stone.

The Muslim is about to get stoned.

The Hindu can do it for one hour without breathing.

The Buddhist is at peace, dirt or no dirt.

The Wiccan is looking for worms or toads.

The New Ager is just feeling the ley lines, man.
:thumb:

:grave:

fool
August 3rd, 2005, 02:34 PM
My critique got deleted from the critique thread!

PureX
August 3rd, 2005, 03:08 PM
I saw it. It made sense to me!

fool
August 3rd, 2005, 03:12 PM
I saw it. It made sense to me!
thanks

avatar382
August 3rd, 2005, 03:27 PM
My critique got deleted from the critique thread!

Is there any way you could repost it here?

fool
August 3rd, 2005, 03:40 PM
Is there any way you could repost it here?
negetive, Poly said it wasen't sincere.

avatar382
August 5th, 2005, 12:39 PM
negetive, Poly said it wasen't sincere.

:(

That's too bad.

avatar382
August 5th, 2005, 12:48 PM
I think Sam's last post did a tremendous job showing the problems of the OV with the generally accepted Christian properties of God.. I think Bob will eventually counter by explaining how the exhaustive foreknowledge view places the responsibility of theodicy (evil) on God. Yes, you heard that right, a theist using the Problem of Evil. Imagine that!

It will be very interesting how see how Sam counters. I think it will be very hard for him to use the free will defense. I think Bob will grill him, rightly so, on how free will can truly exist if God has exhaustive foreknowlege.

But, unfortunately for Bob, the POE (Problem of Evil) doesn't negate the very valid points Sam is making now.

So, The OV side has a clever answer to the problem of evil, but Sam is doing a heck of a job challenging it's orthodoxy, showing how the OV limits a supposedly all-powerful, infinite being to a human level.

The Exhaustive foreknowledge side seems to be orthodox, and more consistant with the Bible, but it cannot deal with the pesky, pesky problem of evil.

Maybe at the end of this debate, both will admit that this is one of "God's mysteries" (read: we don't know... ) Very ironic, if you are reading this debate as an agnostic.

*grabs popcorn*

Zakath
August 5th, 2005, 12:53 PM
It seems that the OV side has quite a few "clever answers"... it's almost as if a group of theologians sat around a table with a list of "non-believer objections" and tried to reconstruct a deity to answer as many of them as possible. :think:

Unfortunately, in the process, the deity they cobbled together is not the same one that is worshipped by many orthodox Christians. :nono:

I will be interested to see if Enyart actually substantively addresses Lamerson's questions or merely redefines terms and dances around to his own prescripted agenda...

Balder
August 5th, 2005, 12:58 PM
I think Sam's last post did a tremendous job showing the problems of the OV with the generally accepted Christian properties of God.. I think Bob will eventually counter by explaining how the exhaustive foreknowledge view places the responsibility of theodicy (evil) on God. Yes, you heard that right, a theist using the Problem of Evil. Imagine that!

It will be very interesting how see how Sam counters. I think it will be very hard for him to use the free will defense. I think Bob will grill him, rightly so, on how free will can truly exist if God has exhaustive foreknowlege.

But, unfortunately for Bob, the POE (Problem of Evil) doesn't negate the very valid points Sam is making now.

So, The OV side has a clever answer to the problem of evil, but Sam is doing a heck of a job challenging it's orthodoxy, showing how the OV limits a supposedly all-powerful, infinite being to a human level.

The Exhaustive foreknowledge side seems to be orthodox, and more consistant with the Bible, but it cannot deal with the pesky, pesky problem of evil.

Maybe at the end of this debate, both will admit that this is one of "God's mysteries" (read: we don't know... ) Very ironic, if you are reading this debate as an agnostic.

*grabs popcorn*
The significant logical and moral problems that accompany both views should suggest that perhaps there is something wrong with the whole perspective.

But I doubt that will occur to either participant.

Turbo
August 5th, 2005, 01:07 PM
I think Bob will eventually counter by explaining how the exhaustive foreknowledge view places the responsibility of theodicy (evil) on God. Yes, you heard that right, a theist using the Problem of Evil. Imagine that!
That would be a theist solving the Problem of Evil.

Zakath
August 5th, 2005, 01:08 PM
That would be a theist solving the Problem of Evil.
Now that would be interesting... :think:

godrulz
August 5th, 2005, 01:11 PM
Both views affirm the great attributes of God. They understand them differently. The root issue is the nature of time/eternity, nature of the future, nature of sovereignty vs free will, nature of creation, etc. It is not primarily about the openness of God. Both views affirm that God is absolutely omniscient. They disagree with what are possible objects of God's knowledge and whether He meticulously or providentially 'controls' the universe. Certainly, theodicy is a stumbling block for the peanut gallery (atheists), but Open Theism maintains God's attributes and man's free will and responsibility for evil.

Zakath
August 5th, 2005, 01:37 PM
Man is no more responsible for all evil than you claim your deity is.

godrulz
August 5th, 2005, 05:56 PM
Man is no more responsible for all evil than you claim your deity is.


Hitler is culpable for murdering Jews. God is no more responsible for this than you are if you are in a nursing home and your child breaks the Law. The gift of free moral agency does not make God responsible if we misuse it.

Flipper
August 5th, 2005, 07:51 PM
I can't get too stoked over this debate (not that I'm the target audience for it anyway).

It's two guys arguing about whether the angels on top of the pin head are dancing a jig or a gavotte.

godrulz
August 5th, 2005, 11:25 PM
I can't get too stoked over this debate (not that I'm the target audience for it anyway).

It's two guys arguing about whether the angels on top of the pin head are dancing a jig or a gavotte.


There are practical implications for believers and unbelievers. If the future is fixed, why be proactive about your life, destiny, the environment, etc.?

swanca99
August 5th, 2005, 11:28 PM
Personally, I have felt since my deconversion that there is Biblical evidence and support for both the Open View and exhaustive foreknowlege. In fact, the issue of free will it's related aspects was the very subjects that initally had me questioning the Bible. I personally believe the subject of BR X is at the heart of one of the its (The Bible's) largest contradictions!


Interesting statement...

If I were ever to "deconvert" it would probably be for similar reasons.

Perhaps it's because my background was math/science rather than philosophical, but I have always felt more comfortable with Bible exposition rather than systematic theology, and after years of personal study and teaching/preaching with an emphasis on Bible expostion, I just happen to remain more of a dispensationalist with Calvinist leanings.

I recognize that systematic theology is important and has its place. However, when I read the writings of authors in diverse orthodox camps (reformed, dispensational, Wesleyan, etc.), each one of them gives such good arguments as to sway one to their own camp. It can be extremely confusing, and might easily lead one to the conclusion that the Bible is filled with contradictions.

I'm not recommending that anybody fear, shun or totally ignore studies or discussions in systematic theology. All I'm saying is that I have found more joy, more interest, and less confusion when studying the Scriptures as they were written rather than viewing the Bible as a boutique of proof texts.

In other words, I would recommend that believers temper their topical studies with whole-book studies.

pheelme
August 7th, 2005, 10:54 AM
There are practical implications for believers and unbelievers. If the future is fixed, why be proactive about your life, destiny, the environment, etc.?
Destiny is past and future, you are pro active, because you got Love, and don't know the future.You making choices that are not yours, you only believe they are.That's how life works.

pheelme
August 7th, 2005, 11:19 AM
I am not "Unbeliever", and have never liked Labels for "Believers".
Every single word that came out of mouth of Jesus Christ was Pure Truth, the thing is, that
His name is not Jesus Christ today, so label "christian" is played out.
What can be said about debate of two blind men on topic " what do you see ? "
If these two Men debating, know the Truth, there wouldn't be a debate.They believe differently.

Question for the Debate itself is inappropriate, and @ the same time serves as an answer,
of how much that Person who came up with the Question,knows and respects God.

God created Everybodys Life from start to the end, and question is "Does God knows you future ? " ??????
This don't even requires Inteligence to answer, this is Question for David Spade, King of
Sarcasm .

much love !

Turbo
August 7th, 2005, 11:28 AM
I am not "Unbeliever"...
You do not believe that Christ was raise from the dead. Therefore you are an "Unbeliever."


Every single word that came out of mouth of Jesus Christ was Pure Truth
You don't really believe that.

From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Matthew 16:21

And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 8:31

pheelme
August 7th, 2005, 12:20 PM
You do not believe that Christ was raise from the dead. Therefore you are an "Unbeliever."


You don't really believe that.

From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Matthew 16:21

And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Mark 8:31
Jesus Christ was God, do you really believe God was dead for two days ??????
Two days for God are like Two Thousand Years, He was dead in your Beliefs, today, after
2000 years He is Alive in flesh again, and it is on you, dear Turbo to Call His Name, or
Die. Joel 2 : 28 - 32 and Acts 2 : 17 - 21

No, I do not "Believe" that, I KNOW, and I FEEL His words, just like I feel and Know my Future.
Do You "Believe" in difference between " I know " and " I believe ", between
truth and belief ??
Christs entire Mission was told in Prophecy, it was that flesh's Destiny, created by that
Spirit, who created that Prophecy.
What is so surprising about suffering and death of that flesh God was In ??

much love !
P.S try to be like Christ, and don't judge who and what I am, please :rotfl:

godrulz
August 7th, 2005, 12:30 PM
Destiny is past and future, you are pro active, because you got Love, and don't know the future.You making choices that are not yours, you only believe they are.That's how life works.

Huh? Is that like the illusion of the science fiction movie "The Matrix"? We are responsible/accountable for our choices. They originate in our minds and wills. They are not illusory.

Do you have a faith background or influences? I do not recognize your thinking.

pheelme
August 7th, 2005, 12:58 PM
Huh? Is that like the illusion of the science fiction movie "The Matrix"? We are responsible/accountable for our choices. They originate in our minds and wills. They are not illusory.

Do you have a faith background or influences? I do not recognize your thinking.
The Matrix is just a Metaphore of already Existing Metaphore, the Bible , the Truth.
Everybody Except disciples felt that Jesus is Lie and Illusion, because well Established Beliefs based on The Law of God.
Your Life wasn't you Choice, it was given to you as a gift from God.It is Entirely His Creation,
how can you believe that Anyone is in Control over Destiny.By that Logic, People who died, let say, by Tsunamis, commited Suicide.
The Matrix is just Vision of Bible's Prophecy.And Neo is just that Dude, who Finaly came second Time, who was more Important than Trinity.Because Holy Trinity is Going to Die
when that Glorious End / New Beginning Happen '

much Logic !

Balder
August 7th, 2005, 01:07 PM
Pheelme,

Neo opened up a can of holy whoopass on people when he "came," mowing them down left and right. Is Jesus going to do that too?

Much killing!

pheelme
August 7th, 2005, 01:17 PM
Pheelme,

Neo opened up a can of holy whoopass on people when he "came," mowing them down left and right. Is Jesus going to do that too?

Much killing!
It is Not Jesus any more, and God Already did that, remember, our Future is His Past.

Neo opened can of Holy whoopass on Lie generated by Existing Contoling Power.
Agent Smith represent a Devil, Spirit Opposite of Neo's.
Right now, you don't need Bible or " the Matrix" trilogy, you need to find the truth about yourself, that lies deep inside your Thoughts.Who, why, where and when you are ?
When you find answers to those four questions, you will become like Jesus or Neo .

much luck !

godrulz
August 7th, 2005, 01:39 PM
Where are you from? Do you speak another language? Is your view stark fatalism?

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
August 7th, 2005, 02:01 PM
There are many attributes of God that both fail to address such as aseity and ineffability

pheelme
August 7th, 2005, 02:14 PM
Where are you from? Do you speak another language? Is your view stark fatalism?
I am just a Spirit from YuPiter (http://musicv2.com/artist/yupiter) I do speak language of God on another language aswell :cheers:
Can you define "view" ?

godrulz
August 7th, 2005, 02:18 PM
There are many attributes of God that both fail to address such as aseity and ineffability


=> God is self-existent and some of His attributes are indescribable or too sacred to utter.

These philosophical concepts are not as self-evident as His love, eternal spirit nature, etc.

godrulz
August 7th, 2005, 02:19 PM
I am just a Spirit from YuPiter (http://musicv2.com/artist/yupiter) I do speak language of God on another language aswell :cheers:
Can you define "view" ?

View= what are your ideas about fatalism, etc.

What other language do you speak? Do you live in North America?

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
August 7th, 2005, 02:20 PM
=> God is self-existent and some of His attributes are indescribable or too sacred to utter.

These philosophical concepts are not as self-evident as His love, eternal spirit nature, etc.
Okasy since you say God's self existence is not self-evident, pray tell me who created God then?

pheelme
August 7th, 2005, 02:56 PM
View= what are your ideas about fatalism, etc.

What other language do you speak? Do you live in North America?
Serbo-croatian, Cleveland , Ohio, USA

Everyone live their life that are created by God, that's for "God created Everything "truth"
We're just moving from point A (birth) to point B (right now), believing, that we can call our Choices "Ours", because our Spirit is telling us what to do.
Ours & Free are dimensions that like everything else have to be 100 % truth, in order to
exist.If you say my life is mine, it have to be 100 % yours, and we can all agree, that is Not.

That's where true Love (God) is kicking in and replacing all your Beliefs.

Here's some of my rhymes in your Honor Only, Only for godrulz !

" Truth hurts the most, only true Love can heal It
Time is the killer of Life, only if you can Feel It "

(U) pheel me (?)

godrulz
August 7th, 2005, 06:17 PM
Okasy since you say God's self existence is not self-evident, pray tell me who created God then?

God is uncreated Creator. His self-existence is self-evident, though an atheist needs revelation as a starting point.

Hasan_ibn_Sabah
August 8th, 2005, 12:22 AM
God is uncreated Creator. His self-existence is self-evident, though an atheist needs revelation as a starting point.

Thats not what you said at first, you said that God's aseity is not self-evident, so which is it self-evident or not?

fool
August 8th, 2005, 01:12 AM
God is uncreated Creator. His self-existence is self-evident, though an atheist needs revelation as a starting point.
Where do I get this revelation from?
What if mine differs from everybody else's revelation?
By what objective standard do I judge and hence validify my revelation?
Is any thought in my head that I have strong feelings about a directive from Yaweh, the sacrafice loving un created creator of the universe who likes the smell of burning goat flesh and wants me to kill the sinners?
Isn't it self evident that the wackier my concepts are the more likely they are to be in align with Yawehs instruction?
The gate is narrow.

pheelme
August 8th, 2005, 01:56 AM
Where do I get this revelation from?
What if mine differs from everybody else's revelation?
By what objective standard do I judge and hence validify my revelation?
Is any thought in my head that I have strong feelings about a directive from Yaweh, the sacrafice loving un created creator of the universe who likes the smell of burning goat flesh and wants me to kill the sinners?
Isn't it self evident that the wackier my concepts are the more likely they are to be in align with Yawehs instruction?
The gate is narrow.

Your words are effect, caused by your personal revelation. If you disbelief or deny the existence of God, you are not wrong, because you or nobody else can deny existence of
destiny.Your never had control over your beliefs, they appeared sudenly as a result of something you've read or simply as you put it just your personal revelation.
Destiny is equal for every Human ever born,It can be two things only,
death or eternal life.Second destiny have never happend,to anyone, first one is all around you, every second, 24/ 7.
That is something called truth. If your personal revelation require indulgence in anything
else that is not truth, wait till your next revelation, or don't.

much love !

avatar382
August 8th, 2005, 08:52 AM
There are many attributes of God that both fail to address such as aseity and ineffability

Could you expand on what you mean by these?

godrulz
August 8th, 2005, 11:31 AM
Thats not what you said at first, you said that God's aseity is not self-evident, so which is it self-evident or not?

It is self-evident to me, but the existence of God does not seem to be self-evident for our atheist friends.

Zakath
August 8th, 2005, 11:45 AM
It is self-evident to me, but the existence of God does not seem to be self-evident for our atheist friends.
Which is, perhaps, why we are atheists. :chuckle:

godrulz
August 8th, 2005, 12:11 PM
Where do I get this revelation from?
What if mine differs from everybody else's revelation?
By what objective standard do I judge and hence validify my revelation?
Is any thought in my head that I have strong feelings about a directive from Yaweh, the sacrafice loving un created creator of the universe who likes the smell of burning goat flesh and wants me to kill the sinners?
Isn't it self evident that the wackier my concepts are the more likely they are to be in align with Yawehs instruction?
The gate is narrow.


Ps. 19; Rom. 1 Creation makes it plain that there is a Creator. This is general revelation available to all.

Heb. 1 Jesus Christ is the full revelation of what God is like. He is God with a face. His person and work is special revelation found in His Word, the Bible.

Just as you can understand Shakespeare, a magazine, or a newspaper, so God's written revelation can be understood using the same interpretation principles. We use the literal, grammatical, contextual, cultural, historical, method of interpretation (hermeneutics is the art and science of Bible interpretation).

"He is there, and He is not silent." - Francis Schaeffer

Hundreds of millions have come to know God. From the simple, mentally challenged child to the greatest thinkers of society, they have understood the evidence and revelation of God.

What is your excuse? Are you blind? Are you illiterate?

Absolute truth is knowable. You do not need to subjectively rationalize away the God-given ability to know truth.

Your issue is more moral than intellectual. Christianity is intellectually defensible. If it is true, are you willing to leave the kingdom of Self for the rightful Kingdom of King Jesus? It will mean surrendering your sword of rebellion. It will not mean throwing your brain out the window. C.S. Lewis knows all about this. It became harder to not live for God than it was to admit He was real and worthy of love and service. He is the most valuable being in the universe and most qualified to run your life.

The message of the Bible is that He is God and you are not. god-playing is for the birds.

fool
August 8th, 2005, 10:15 PM
Ps. 19; Rom. 1 Creation makes it plain that there is a Creator. This is general revelation available to all.
Creators are cool.


Heb. 1 Jesus Christ is the full revelation of what God is like. He is God with a face. His person and work is special revelation found in His Word, the Bible.

I don't think Jesus of Nazareth existed.
I don't think his dad Yaweh exists except in peoples minds.


Just as you can understand Shakespeare, a magazine, or a newspaper, so God's written revelation can be understood using the same interpretation principles. We use the literal, grammatical, contextual, cultural, historical, method of interpretation (hermeneutics is the art and science of Bible interpretation).

Sounds like you got alot of lenses there. Seems like that might make it hard focus.



"He is there, and He is not silent." - Francis Schaeffer

What's he saying?
How do you know?


Hundreds of millions have come to know God. From the simple, mentally challenged child to the greatest thinkers of society, they have understood the evidence and revelation of God.

How do you know what God they knew?



The message of the Bible is that He is God and you are not. god-playing is for the birds.
God building is something Man seems quite good at.

godrulz
August 9th, 2005, 12:06 AM
Creators are cool.

I don't think Jesus of Nazareth existed.


The most hard-hearted secular people do not question the historicity of Jesus Christ. What planet are you from? You know, Christmas, Easter, B.C./A.D., etc.?

I know the tooth fairy does not exist. The question is not if He existed, but who is He? Liar, lunatic, legend, or Lord?

Pay attention. Your eternal destiny depends on thinking through these things:

1) Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

2) Where did you get those ideas?

3) Have you ever considered what He said about Himself?

Zakath
August 9th, 2005, 06:33 AM
The most hard-hearted secular people do not question the historicity of Jesus Christ. More correctly, "most people" do not questino the histriocity of Jesus of Nazareth. They do question whether he is the Jewish Messiah...


I know the tooth fairy does not exist. How do you know this? Are you omniscient? Do you know every possible evidence for such an entity's existence? Have you disproved every possible evidence for such an entity's existence? Have you been to every place in the universe that such an entity might inhabit?

An atheist merely applies similar rational processes that you would use to disbelieve the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny to your deity and comes to the same conclusion you do about those two mythical beings... no real existence.


The question is not if He existed, but who is He? Liar, lunatic, legend, or Lord?You forgot one... a gradual accretion and fabrication by the Church to the person of a first century Jewish rabbi over the centuries to bolster its political, economic, and social control over its adherents.

godrulz
August 9th, 2005, 10:08 AM
You forgot one... a gradual accretion and fabrication by the Church to the person of a first century Jewish rabbi over the centuries to bolster its political, economic, and social control over its adherents.


So, you are saying He is a liar and a lunatic, not a legend or Lord? He claimed to be God. This makes Him a crazy liar if He is not God. It also leaves no credibility for the rest of His moral teachings. Quacks are not worth dying for.

Nice counter-logic (using our arguments against us). At some point, thinking people are confidant that the tooth-fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Clause are your parents. They may also be people dressed up (make-believe). Knowing that Bush, Zakath, or God exist is in a different realm. Not believing fairy tales is not a strong argument to not believe that your neighbour does not exist.

Balder
August 9th, 2005, 11:00 AM
I believe Bob's argument is relatively coherent, but it apparently fails to acknowledge what I consider to be a progressive development of theological and moral understanding in the Bible, and it seems to turn God into just the "Biggest Man" (among men), a contingent entity also bound to time and space in important ways. Which, admittedly, is consistent particularly with early anthropomorphic conceptions of their volcano god, who walked in the garden and through their camps (remember to cover your feces!) and who could show his backside to Moses, etc. God, in this sense, is like the Greek or Roman or other pagan gods: just a bigger version of us, even capable of error. One wonders if God too is learning and evolving, like the rest of us.


Consider the order of His deeper attributes, living, personal, relational, good, and loving, in reverse. God could not be loving if He were not good. And He could not know that He was good if He were not relational. And He could not be relational if He were not personal. And He could not be personal if He were not living. Certainly none of these greater, qualitative attributes depends upon God’s control (sovereignty) over the created order. Now consider the lesser, quantitative attribute of omnipresence which Tyndale Bible Dictionary (2001) defines as: that God “transcends the limitations of space and is present in all places at all times.” Most Calvinists believe that time and space came into existence at creation! And since I’m running out of both, let’s ignore time for now. Typical definitions of omnipresence depend upon the existence of “space” and “places,” neither of which existed prior to creation, requiring a “reformulation” of this doctrine also. Describing God in respect to being in or even working in every location is only relevant if there is a location, so men have construed an “eternal attribute” dependent upon the non-eternal created order. Oops. God can’t be everywhere, until He makes somewhere. It is commitment to their Greek-influenced foundation which biases Bible teachers toward ignoring such simple matters. Sam, I hope you can come to see that the traditional omnipresence is not a fundamental eternal attribute, but came into existence along with sovereignty, at the creation.

Quantity will always be second to quality. God is love, not data. And though I have all knowledge, but have not love, I am nothing (1 Cor. 13:2).
Oh, no! Bob used an argument that I have also used against Clete and BChristianK! That God's traditional eternal attributes are in fact contingent, presupposing and depending on the created order for their meaning! But this argument also goes against "holiness" as an eternal attribute of God, if we understand holiness to mean "set apart."


There was no lack of wicked people standing in line to crucify Jesus. With or without Judas, the high priest Caiaphas could have arrested Jesus. With or without Caiaphas, Pilate could have sentenced Christ (with any mob shouting, "We have no king but Caesar"). But what if every Jew repented, and every Gentile? If the whole world humbled itself, including Judas, Caiaphas, Herod, Pilate, and even Tiberius Caesar, absolutely everybody, then would God be unable to sacrifice His Son? No. Then He could instruct the high priest, who would be obedient, to prepare to sacrifice the Offering. "Caiaphas, stand outside the Temple, and lift up your eyes, and go, and at the top of the hill, as it was prophesied, In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided, there on Mt. Moriah, as Abraham had readied Isaac, prepare to sacrifice My Son, Jesus. He will present Himself there. And at the moment that every family is killing their Passover lambs, you will slay the Atonement, My Holy Passover, and sprinkle His blood on the people."
This makes it pretty clear that Christianity is, without doubt, founded on ritual human sacrifice. Like the old goddess traditions which demanded ritual regicide, or the early Hebrew notion that the slaying of enemies and the gathering of loot was a pleasing sacrifice ("devotion") for God. But if God could have ensured the ritual sacrifice of Christ in any number of ways, and was just "tweaking" events to bring it about one way or another, one wonders why Jesus (as God incarnate) didn't choose Bob's more direct scenario instead of trying to get in trouble and get himself executed in a non-ritual manner by pagan soldiers.

Zakath
August 9th, 2005, 04:16 PM
So, you are saying He is a liar and a lunatic, not a legend or Lord?Reread my post. I said he was a first century rabbi, deified by his followers descendants for their own reasons.


He claimed to be God. This makes Him a crazy liar if He is not God. It also leaves no credibility for the rest of His moral teachings. Quacks are not worth dying for.I would agree that a quack is not worth dying for. The problem you Christians have is that you don't have any idea what he actually said, and what was attributed to him by his followers, intent on building a political power base...


Nice counter-logic (using our arguments against us).I'm glad you appreciated it. ;)


At some point, thinking people are confidant that the tooth-fairy or Easter Bunny or Santa Clause are your parents. They may also be people dressed up (make-believe). Knowing that Bush, Zakath, or God exist is in a different realm. Not believing fairy tales is not a strong argument to not believe that your neighbour does not exist.But your god is just as much a fairy tale, to me, as the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy... :D

GuySmiley
August 9th, 2005, 04:38 PM
You forgot one... a gradual accretion and fabrication by the Church to the person of a first century Jewish rabbi over the centuries to bolster its political, economic, and social control over its adherents.
Then the historical evidence (including the Bible) ought to show a gradual 'evolution' about who Jesus was. But it doesn't. The text of the Bible existed as we have it today very close to Jesus' life. So there is no gradual fabrication. A sudden fabrication too close to the time Jesus actually lived would've been killed off early since people who knew Jesus were still alive. As an example, the gnostics.

GuySmiley
August 9th, 2005, 04:43 PM
But if God could have ensured the ritual sacrifice of Christ in any number of ways, and was just "tweaking" events to bring it about one way or another, one wonders why Jesus (as God incarnate) didn't choose Bob's more direct scenario instead of trying to get in trouble and get himself executed in a non-ritual manner by pagan soldiers.
I'm not sure if you've seen the title of the debate, check it out. Also realize that Bob is on the Open View side of the debate. This might clear up why God did not choose the scenario. A lot of free will agents, aka humans, were involved. That might be a good question for Lamerson though.

godrulz
August 9th, 2005, 04:46 PM
But your god is just as much a fairy tale, to me, as the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy... :D


"..to me..."= key.

Gravity still applies to you whether you believe it or not. God is still God, whether puny you thinks so or not. Like Copernicus, you need to discover that the sun/Son, not the earth (you) is the center of our universe.

Balder
August 9th, 2005, 04:54 PM
I'm not sure if you've seen the title of the debate, check it out. Also realize that Bob is on the Open View side of the debate. This might clear up why God did not choose the scenario. A lot of free will agents, aka humans, were involved. That might be a good question for Lamerson though.
I'm not sure that free will would have posed a problem to Bob's more direct scenario. As their master and teacher, Jesus could have simply asked his disciples to kill him sacrificially, as the "final sacrifice."

Knight
August 9th, 2005, 04:54 PM
But your god is just as much a fairy tale, to me, as the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy... :DThere will be no knees bowing to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

There will come a day when you think back upon that statement in a remorseful way.

fool
August 9th, 2005, 05:49 PM
Then the historical evidence (including the Bible) ought to show a gradual 'evolution' about who Jesus was. But it doesn't. The text of the Bible existed as we have it today very close to Jesus' life. So there is no gradual fabrication. A sudden fabrication too close to the time Jesus actually lived would've been killed off early since people who knew Jesus were still alive. As an example, the gnostics.
Guy Smiley, straw man maker;
There is alot more writings about the matter that aren't included in your Bible.
That fact alone should tell you that editing has occured.

godrulz
August 9th, 2005, 06:27 PM
Guy Smiley, straw man maker;
There is alot more writings about the matter that aren't included in your Bible.
That fact alone should tell you that editing has occured.

The Bible, like other historical literature, is selective history. It does not record everything that happened. What is recorded is true (see Jn. 21:25; Acts 1:1).

fool
August 9th, 2005, 06:32 PM
The Bible, like other historical literature, is selective history. It does not record everything that happened. What is recorded is true (see Jn. 21:25; Acts 1:1).
You are no doubt aware that you can't substantiate that.

godrulz
August 9th, 2005, 07:10 PM
You are no doubt aware that you can't substantiate that.


It is obviously selective history. Luke was a doctor and historian. Archaelogy and secular references have confirmed much of Bible history. Just as skeptics doubted certain things, the evidence came in. The historical veracity and manuscript evidence for the Bible exceeds many ancient works that you accept without question. At some point, faith (not presumption) will be a factor.


Jesus said that if you believe, you will see. You want to see in order to believe. Seek and you will find. Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you.

fool
August 9th, 2005, 07:58 PM
Jesus said that if you believe, you will see. You want to see in order to believe. Seek and you will find. Draw near to Him and He will draw near to you.
What if I believe the Koran? Or the Book of Mormon? Or The Book of Shadows? Or Dianetics? Adherents to these books can use the same arguement. Are you ready to concede that, just perhaps one should use a modicrome of rationality?

godrulz
August 9th, 2005, 08:19 PM
What if I believe the Koran? Or the Book of Mormon? Or The Book of Shadows? Or Dianetics? Adherents to these books can use the same arguement. Are you ready to concede that, just perhaps one should use a modicrome of rationality?


Absolutely, we need to use our coconut. This is how we avoid deception. Dianetics was written by a science fiction writer who said the best way to make money is to start a religion. His ideas are pure science fiction.

The BOM has anachronisms, plagiarisms from the KJV, archaelogical false data, 4000 changes from the 1830 edition, and no MSS evidence (the supposed gold plates written in a non-existent language= Reformed Egyptian Hierglyphics are lost in space). Joseph Smith had no credibility.

The Koran is also problematic, etc. etc.

Christianity and the Bible are intellectually defensible. Other religious books are not the inspired Word of God.

Here is a helpful reference for you (click next page for contents):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0802429165/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7911674-7031268#reader-link

fool
August 9th, 2005, 09:12 PM
Absolutely, we need to use our coconut. This is how we avoid deception. Dianetics was written by a science fiction writer who said the best way to make money is to start a religion. His ideas are pure science fiction.
And yet people still believe it. Wouldn't the " belief before understanding" arguement apply?
Seems that it would.


The BOM has anachronisms, plagiarisms from the KJV, archaelogical false data, 4000 changes from the 1830 edition, and no MSS evidence (the supposed gold plates written in a non-existent language= Reformed Egyptian Hierglyphics are lost in space). Joseph Smith had no credibility.
And the body of Jesus is lost in space as well. Apple for apple.


The Koran is also problematic, etc. etc.

Christianity and the Bible are intellectually defensible. Other religious books are not the inspired Word of God.

Lotsa things are intellectually defensible, especialy when there's a talented wordsmith in the mix.


Here is a helpful reference for you (click next page for contents):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0802429165/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7911674-7031268#reader-link
Thanks for the link, I'm saving up to by Freaks book, and then maybe The First Hunderd Days.

GuySmiley
August 9th, 2005, 09:20 PM
Guy Smiley, straw man maker;
There is alot more writings about the matter that aren't included in your Bible.
That fact alone should tell you that editing has occured.
So the earliest writings about Jesus present him as only a man, and then we see a gradual shift in later writings that presents Jesus as God? What writings are you talking about? I was directly replying to a statement that Zak made so I dont see where you get that I made a straw man. Zak did make the statement. But if I had a strawman, he'd know you are wrong also.

godrulz
August 9th, 2005, 09:30 PM
And yet people still believe it. Wouldn't the " belief before understanding" arguement apply?
Seems that it would.

And the body of Jesus is lost in space as well. Apple for apple.

Lotsa things are intellectually defensible, especialy when there's a talented wordsmith in the mix.

Thanks for the link, I'm saving up to by Freaks book, and then maybe The First Hunderd Days.


Jesus is not lost in space. The Mormon Gold Plates are fictitious. Jesus Christ is alive and bodily risen from the dead ruling at the right hand of the Father.

Jesus was talking about trusting Him to have your spiritual eyes open. Unbelief blinds one to the truth.

fool
August 9th, 2005, 09:37 PM
Jesus is not lost in space. The Mormon Gold Plates are fictitious. Jesus Christ is alive and bodily risen from the dead ruling at the right hand of the Father.
Are You absolutly sure the plates aren't sitting next to Him on th coffee table?



Jesus was talking about trusting Him to have your spiritual eyes open. Unbelief blinds one to the truth.
And belief makes whatever you think you see true.

avatar382
August 10th, 2005, 08:25 AM
There will be no knees bowing to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

There will come a day when you think back upon that statement in a remorseful way.

Always threats with you people.... :chuckle:

Balder
August 10th, 2005, 08:47 AM
Always threats with you people.... :chuckle:

That's one of the areas where "god as relational" vs. "free will creatures" becomes rather monstrous, because what you end up with is deadly compulsion: "Love me or else."

godrulz
August 10th, 2005, 09:27 AM
That's one of the areas where "god as relational" vs. "free will creatures" becomes rather monstrous, because what you end up with is deadly compulsion: "Love me or else."

God is not Constantine who threatens death without conversion. God loves, woos, draws, persuades. Love relationships must be freely chosen and maintained. Man introduced the consequences of sin when he rebelled. God is a responsible Moral Governor of the universe. His Law of Love must be upheld. This includes sanctions for breaking His Law. As a parent or a Judge, one should appreciate that Hitler must be held accountable and stopped. Rewards for obedience are equally important.

The gift of free will entails the possibility of chosing to love God or chosing to live for Self. The former continues forever in His presence, while the latter results in separation from God.

It is to God's credit that He gave you free will instead of making robotons or slaves. If you chose to be a slave to sin and Self, there will be consequences (cf. jumping off a cliff and breaking the law of gravity). God has done everything to bring you back. He became a man and died an ignominious death. He loved us to the point of dying for us. If you spit in His face, you will be allowed to spend eternity in the insane asylum for stupid, selfish people. Not only is this fair, it is just. Love and holiness are two wings of the bird. Love without truth is sentimentality. Truth without love would be harsh. God is love, but He is also Holy and responsible to allow righteousness to reign and evil to be banished in the end.

Zakath
August 10th, 2005, 07:52 PM
Then the historical evidence (including the Bible) ought to show a gradual 'evolution' about who Jesus was. But it doesn't. The text of the Bible existed as we have it today very close to Jesus' life. So there is no gradual fabrication. A sudden fabrication too close to the time Jesus actually lived would've been killed off early since people who knew Jesus were still alive. As an example, the gnostics.Are you aware of how old the earliest, nearly complete, set of gospels is?

:think:

Zakath
August 10th, 2005, 07:54 PM
There will be no knees bowing to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. That's not their style, so far as I understand.


There will come a day when you think back upon that statement in a remorseful way.Unless we're both very wrong about the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy, I think not. :nono:

Zakath
August 10th, 2005, 07:55 PM
God is not Constantine who threatens death without conversion. Your deity merely promises eternal torment for those who do not convert. Simple death is much easier to deal with.

CRASH
August 10th, 2005, 07:58 PM
That Zakath has the nerve to even comment on a page about a Battle Royale after the butt whooping he was on the bad end of in 03. Wow. That takes guts to even go back near a ring after what you went through.

Zakath
August 10th, 2005, 08:02 PM
That Zakath has the nerve to even comment on a page about a Battle Royale after the butt whooping he was on the bad end of in 03. Wow. That takes guts to even go back near a ring after what you went through.
Now that was truly an edifying post, Crash. It really contributes to the topic under discussion. :rolleyes:

Why not come back and comment after you've been around longer than a couple of months... :loser:

CRASH
August 10th, 2005, 08:06 PM
Nice try Zaketh - my joined date is wrong. I was here well before you at the turn of the millinium, ask Gerald. I took a few years off and will probably leave again soon. I have a life.

Zakath
August 10th, 2005, 08:18 PM
Nice try Zaketh - my joined date is wrong. I was here well before you at the turn of the millinium, ask Gerald. I took a few years off and will probably leave again soon.If you say so... don't let the door hit you on the way out.


I have a life.Sure you do... that's why you're here, posting on the Unbelievers' discussion of BR X. :darwinsm:

CRASH
August 10th, 2005, 08:48 PM
If you say so... don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Sure you do... that's why you're here, posting on the Unbelievers' discussion of BR X. :darwinsm:

Good point.