Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Discuss.

I don't think it happens.

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't think it happens.
I'm shocked. Seriously.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Discuss.
I think it Biblically supported, however, I do not think it conflicts free will.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I do not think conflicts free will.

*dies of confusion induced aneurism*

: I've got the Presbyterian Handbook at home it has a sction on how to explain predestination. I'll post it when I get there.

Predestination DOES go against free will, but there are scriptures that do back it up that other denominations have built their faith on...It's really quite sad because if one is not predestined, then it wouldn't matter what they did, because they were not intended to really be saved. And how would a person prove it? Predestination is an evil doctrine.

One verse that would combat it is "Jesus came to die for everyone especially the unbelievers" meaning that people can choose ie..freewill.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Predestination DOES go against free will, but there are scriptures that do back it up that other denominations have built their faith on...It's really quite sad because if one is not predestined, then it wouldn't matter what they did, because they were not intended to really be saved. And how would a person prove it? Predestination is an evil doctrine.

One verse that would combat it is "Jesus came to die for everyone especially the unbelievers" meaning that people can choose ie..freewill.
I knew you were going to say that...

Really??.LOL

bangin

I have two lines of thinking about predestination.

1. God has only offered salvation to certain people. However, these people also happen to be the ones God knows will accept salvation.

2. God offers salvation to everyone but has elected certain people to become saved. Others outside this may become saved, but God has not "predestined" them to salvation.

Either way, God isn't "withholding" salvation from people.

I'm along the lines of 2. I believe that one reason predestination exists is to ensure that the faith survives and continues to be preached. I think that God probably uses it very little in Western countries nowadays, but that it is very present in third world countries that are being evangelized.

I don't believe in it. I believe for every action there is a consequence. And your actions merit you eternal salvation or eternal damnation.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'm along the lines of 2. I believe that one reason predestination exists is to ensure that the faith survives and continues to be preached. I think that God probably uses it very little in Western countries nowadays, but that it is very present in third world countries that are being evangelized.

That makes quite a bit of sense. From that standpoint then, prophets and peoples such as Noah, Mary, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Moses, King David and the like would probably be predestined, since their lives played very significant roles in God's plans.

Many of these peoples make references within the scripture to God forming them in the womb, for these specific purposes.

None of this of course would represent favortism on God's part for these people, nor would it take away their free will...but God elected and purposed them to be used as special instruments in fulfilling his purpose, which generally entailed informing others of his true loving nature.

These predistined people were probably held to much higher standards of abiding by God's will then the common man. And rightfully so, seeing as how God had already instilled them with a great knowledge of his true loving character from the womb.

No such thing

Originally posted by Strangelove
No such thing

See Ephesians 1:4-5 (its the only useful quote about predestination in the handbook)

If an omniscient being exists, then it is impossible to have free will; see omniscience paradox.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If an omniscient being exists, then it is impossible to have free will; see omniscience paradox.

Unless one possesses omniscience themselves, how do they know this to be impossible?; see common sense.

Originally posted by Thundar
Unless one possesses omniscience themselves, how do they know this to be impossible; see common sense.

see common sense

if something knows everything then nothing can defy that knowledge ie no free will

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
see common sense

if something knows everything then nothing can defy that knowledge ie no free will


If one is not omnsicient, then they won't know what is/isn't possible to do with omniscience; skip common sense, and redirect oneself to stupidity.

Originally posted by Thundar
If one is not omnsicient, then they won't know what is/isn't possible to do with omniscience; skip common sense, and redirect oneself to stupidity.

Supidity:
See Thundar

With everything we discuss in this forum, this thread was bound to happen... renske

Originally posted by Mindship
With everything we discuss in this forum, this thread was bound to happen... renske

yes

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Supidity:
See Thundar

After carefully reading the above, I'm assuming you misspelled "sipidity."

Originally posted by Thundar
After carefully reading the above, I'm assuming you misspelled "sipidity."



whos to say Thundar doesn't taste good

Originally posted by Thundar
If one is not omnsicient, then they won't know what is/isn't possible to do with omniscience; skip common sense, and redirect oneself to stupidity.

If an omniscient being knows that you will put on a pair of socks of a particular color, then you have to put on the color that the omniscient being knows that you will put on.

For if it is possible for you to put on a color other than the color that the omniscient being knows that you will put on, then the omniscient being is not truly omniscient.

However, if it is not possible for you to put on a color other than the color that the omniscient being knows that you will put on, then you do not have free will, only the semblance thereof.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If an omniscient being knows that you will put on a pair of socks of a particular color, then you have to put on the color that the omniscient being knows that you will put on.

For if it is possible for you to put on a color other than the color that the omniscient being knows that you will put on, then the omniscient being is not truly omniscient.

However, if it is not possible for you to put on a color other than the color that the omniscient being knows that you will put on, then you do not have free will, only the semblance thereof.


Exactly my point in my other thread....I thought that perhaps if Alternate Realities exist, then it may be possible for both God to see the future and for Free Will to be true....however, let me not derail the thread like I do so often....

As I've said, God isn't bound by the human constraints of time. God is there the moment you are about to choose the sock, the moment that you choose it, and the moment where you will be after choosing it.

Furthermore, note that, with the sock example, God is not controlling the decision. One is perfectly able to pick the sock that one prefers--one has the ability to exercise one's will in choosing the sock--while someone still knows what one will choose.

Suppose that we were to take this a step farther: God, from before there was time, has known everything, including everything that He would do. Now, if God has known everything He would do, He certainly can't not do them--does God lack free will? Such a notion is preposterous.

The "omniscience paradox" falls victim to the assumption that God is like man and constrained by such things as paradoxes.

Originally posted by FeceMan
The "omniscience paradox" falls victim to the assumption that God is like man and constrained by such things as paradoxes.


Exactly. And it also makes the illogical assumption that one with limited knowledge, can understand what can and can't be done with omniscience. This argument unto itself destroys the logic behind the entire "omniscience paradox."

Originally posted by FeceMan
As I've said, God isn't bound by the human constraints of time.



Oh no ?


If God is bound to the human constraints of anger, punishment, judgement, jealousy, and wrath, then how could he not be constraint to a much more powerful force such as time ?


I mean, he's even constraint to the construct of Gender !




Originally posted by FeceMan
God is there the moment you are about to choose the sock, the moment that you choose it, and the moment where you will be after choosing it.


If God exists in all aspects of time and is unchanging, then how does he act differently from one moment of time to another ?

He will flood the earth, send plagues, get angry, be pleased, get angry again, be pleased again, decide to send his son or his avatar to earth to be sacraficed, communicate with humans, etc.

It is obvious that God makes choices, and comes up with different solutions and attempts at governing mankind...


It is obvious that God's mood changes.....for a mood to change, Time must be present and active...

How does a God who is unchanging and not dependent on Time, ACT in the context of time ?

He can't do that if he is a solid being who does not exist within time.....




Originally posted by FeceMan
Furthermore, note that, with the sock example, God is not controlling the decision. One is perfectly able to pick the sock that one prefers--one has the ability to exercise one's will in choosing the sock--while someone still knows what one will choose.



No one said God is controlling it.....


What we are saying is that if God knows whats going to happen, then that renders all other possibilities non-existant, because there is a ZERO percent chance that all other events will occur.


Choice cannot be present is there is only a ZERO percent chance of all other events occuring....

By definition, Choice requires options and other possibilities.....





Originally posted by FeceMan
Suppose that we were to take this a step farther: God, from before there was time, has known everything, including everything that He would do. Now, if God has known everything He would do, He certainly can't not do them--does God lack free will? Such a notion is preposterous.



If God does not exist within the context of time, then how could he exist in a beginning, middle, and end ?


He could not "know" what he "will" do or "has done" if he is not dependent on time....


Which is it Feceman ?

Does God exist within or depend on time, OR NOT ?




Originally posted by FeceMan
The "omniscience paradox" falls victim to the assumption that God is like man and constrained by such things as paradoxes.


IF God is like a man in the sense that he experiences anger, pleasure, jealousy, wrath, and projects judgement, than how is it wrong to argue that he is ALSO like a man in the sense that he exists within the bounds of time ?

Originally posted by Thundar
Exactly. And it also makes the illogical assumption that one with limited knowledge, can understand what can and can't be done with omniscience. This argument unto itself destroys the logic behind the entire "omniscience paradox."

you are confusing omniscience and omnipotence Thundar

omnipotence could (in theory) allow one to defy logic but omniscience does not

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
you are confusing omniscience and omnipotence Thundar

omnipotence could (in theory) allow one to defy logic but omniscience does not

How do you know omniscience isn't omnipotence?

Originally posted by Thundar
How do you know omniscience isn't omnipotence?

etymology

and a good dose of my own omniscience

Originally posted by Thundar
How do you know omniscience isn't omnipotence?



Omnipotence- the power to DO all


Omniscience- the power to SEE all



Seeing and Doing are two different things....

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Omnipotence- the power to DO all


Omniscience- the power to SEE all



Seeing and Doing are two different things....

*Umm..mr. Urizen..unless you're omnisicient...you don't have a complete knowledge of what omnipotence means or represents..my friend..

Originally posted by Thundar
*Umm..mr. Urizen..unless you're omnisicient...you don't have a complete knowledge of what omnipotence means or represents..my friend..

Just how omnisicient are you mrThundar? You're arguing yourself into a corner my good chum.

Originally posted by Thundar
*Umm..mr. Urizen..unless you're omnisicient...you don't have a complete knowledge of what omnipotence means or represents..my friend..


When did I claim to have a complete knowledge of omnipotence ?


All I stated were the definitions of omnipotence and omniscience..you do not need one to have the other....

Since NEITHER EXIST....i don't see the problem.

* omniscience - unlimited knowledge, knows all
* omnipotence - unlimited power, can do all

* what if these characteristics people attribute to God is not Biblical... maybe we would be closer to understanding His will...

* human beings are given by God the gift of free will... the power to choose... so humans are not like puppets or remote-controlled robots...

* re: predestination... God desires all people to be saved, and God is the savior of both believers and unbelievers/non-believers... many are called (the desire of God to save) but few are chosen (predestinates)...

Originally posted by peejayd
* human beings are given by God the gift of free will... the power to choose... so humans are not like puppets or remote-controlled robots...

No one has free will according to The Bible:

Originally posted by FeceMan
As I've said, God isn't bound by the human constraints of time. God is there the moment you are about to choose the sock, the moment that you choose it, and the moment where you will be after choosing it.

It follows from this that God knows whether or not one will go to hell before he is created. A God who would create someone knowing that he will go to hell is not omnibenevolent.




Originally posted by FeceMan
Furthermore, note that, with the sock example, God is not controlling the decision.

No one stated that God is controlling the decision. Rather, that the action is fixed by nature of being foreknowable.




Originally posted by FeceMan
One is perfectly able to pick the sock that one prefers--one has the ability to exercise one's will in choosing the sock--while someone still knows what one will choose.

No, it appears to the individual that he has the ability to exercise his will with regards to choosing which sock to put on, but the decision is predetermined. He is simply going through the motions.




Originally posted by FeceMan
Suppose that we were to take this a step farther: God, from before there was time, has known everything, including everything that He would do. Now, if God has known everything He would do, He certainly can't not do them--does God lack free will? Such a notion is preposterous.

The "omniscience paradox" falls victim to the assumption that God is like man and constrained by such things as paradoxes.

God is necessarily constrained by paradoxes, but characteristics of God, i.e. omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. certainly are.

Originally posted by Thundar
Exactly. And it also makes the illogical assumption that one with limited knowledge, can understand what can and can't be done with omniscience. This argument unto itself destroys the logic behind the entire "omniscience paradox."

This is not a sound argument, it is a tautology.

Originally posted by Thundar
How do you know omniscience isn't omnipotence?

Because they are two fundamentally different characteristics.




Originally posted by Thundar
*Umm..mr. Urizen..unless you're omnisicient...you don't have a complete knowledge of what omnipotence means or represents..my friend..

How do you figure?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Because they are two fundamentally different characteristics.


From our limited perspective they are. Unless of course you're alluding that your understanding of "omiscience" and "omnipotence", is coming from an unlimited view and/or understanding of both terms.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How do you figure?


My opinion is based on the limited knowledge I have acquired in life. Based on this limited knowledge, logic, and common sense..I have come to the conclusion that as a limited being, it is impossible for me to ascertain what is possible for one to do with omniscience, since I myself do not possess omniscience. That was the basic argument being made, and this is why the omniscience paradox is nothing more than an invalid-illogical pressuposition.

Originally posted by Thundar
My opinion is based on the limited knowledge I have acquired in life. Based on this limited knowledge, logic, and common sense..I have come to the conclusion that as a limited being, it is impossible for me to ascertain what is possible for one to do with omniscience, since I myself do not possess omniscience. That was the basic argument being made, and this is why the omniscience paradox is nothing more than an invalid-illogical pressuposition.

I always wondered where exactly the whole "made in God's image" comes into it. We all get the "we are vastly below God in everything department"... which seems like a waste. I build a car in the image of another car, well I expect it to be able to do similar, if not the same as the first. If it couldn't then it wouldn't truly be in the image of the first, except in the most cosmetic of ways - that is it might look like it but not much else.

God is omniscient, we aren't, and apparently we have so limited a knowledge base we can't even really imagine what being omniscient is like, or really understand it. And as a result, our limited knowledge means we have to scratch our heads and with a rueful smile say "God works in mysterious ways. Mysterious ways beyond us simple humans crafted in God's image. Just not the part the image that has any power or understanding and so forth"



If God is indeed like that... what exactly is the purpose of existence? If he knows how the cookie will crumble... why go through this whole business? After all, apparently he will get huffy (and knows he will) and will eventually decide to flush the whole human project down the toilet, catching up those people who ended up on the right side (as he knew they would) and so on. As an eternal being it wouldn't have taken any time what so ever, so it just seems bemusing he/she/it went with this middle portion of the game at all. After all, he/she/it knew what would happen... just kind of makes the whole existence part kind of superfluous.

Like how when someone tells you the ending of a book - the Butler did it with the candlestick because Lord Bushelwaif was having an affair with his the stableboy - kind takes away the imperative to read the middle part. Unless its a great book you want to read again and again (thought God is only reading us once.)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No one has free will according to The Bible:

* nice try... those verses refer to the members of the Church, and NOT all people... all people have free will according to The Bible:

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,"
Deuteronomy 30:19

Originally posted by peejayd
* nice try... those verses refer to the members of the Church, and NOT all people... all people have free will according to The Bible:

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,"
Deuteronomy 30:19

that quote has nothing to do with free will

it seems to be talking about where the person adressed wants to live or die

* there are options... the power to choose... plus, if there is no free will, like what mr.adam_poe had said, why is there sin?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I always wondered where exactly the whole "made in God's image" comes into it. We all get the "we are vastly below God in everything department"... which seems like a waste. I build a car in the image of another car, well I expect it to be able to do similar, if not the same as the first. If it couldn't then it wouldn't truly be in the image of the first, except in the most cosmetic of ways - that is it might look like it but not much else.

God is omniscient, we aren't, and apparently we have so limited a knowledge base we can't even really imagine what being omniscient is like, or really understand it. And as a result, our limited knowledge means we have to scratch our heads and with a rueful smile say "God works in mysterious ways. Mysterious ways beyond us simple humans crafted in God's image. Just not the part the image that has any power or understanding and so forth"



If God is indeed like that... what exactly is the purpose of existence? If he knows how the cookie will crumble... why go through this whole business? After all, apparently he will get huffy (and knows he will) and will eventually decide to flush the whole human project down the toilet, catching up those people who ended up on the right side (as he knew they would) and so on. As an eternal being it wouldn't have taken any time what so ever, so it just seems bemusing he/she/it went with this middle portion of the game at all. After all, he/she/it knew what would happen... just kind of makes the whole existence part kind of superfluous.

Like how when someone tells you the ending of a book - the Butler did it with the candlestick because Lord Bushelwaif was having an affair with his the stableboy - kind takes away the imperative to read the middle part. Unless its a great book you want to read again and again (thought God is only reading us once.)


*mr. Imperial..the simple answer to all of your questions...is "God is love"...

*We may not understand everything about him, but he has made it easy for all of us to understand that he is loving...

Forgot mr. Imperial, ellipses, and put winky smily in the wrong place.
Left in bold bracket.

meant "but" not "be"

Originally posted by Thundar
My opinion is based on the limited knowledge I have acquired in life. Based on this limited knowledge, logic, and common sense..I have come to the conclusion that as a limited being, it is impossible for me to ascertain what is possible for one to do with omniscience, since I myself do not possess omniscience. That was the basic argument being made, and this is why the omniscience paradox is nothing more than an invalid-illogical pressuposition.

As I stated previously, this is not a sound argument, it is a tautology.

Originally posted by peejayd
* nice try... those verses refer to the members of the Church, and NOT all people... all people have free will according to The Bible:

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,"
Deuteronomy 30:19

Acts 13:48 addresses Gentiles, and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 addresses non-Christians.

I posted seven verses in which God predetermines who will believe in Him, who will not believe in Him, who He will glorify, who He will condemn, on whom He will have mercy, etc. and you have posted one verse that does not even address free will.

Nice try.

Originally posted by peejayd
* nice try... those verses refer to the members of the Church, and NOT all people... all people have free will according to The Bible:

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,"
Deuteronomy 30:19 Well Deuteronomy is talking about curses, not free will. The whole book is about the "Laws, festivals and Sabbaths." And there wasn't a church at that time. Also there was no teaching of hell by Moses. Only curses for not following the laws.

Originally posted by Thundar
*mr. Imperial..the simple answer to all of your questions...is "God is love"...

*We may not understand everything about him, but he has made it easy for all of us to understand that he is loving...

1) I'm sure you're smart enough to know that isn't true
2) No he really hasn't

Originally posted by FeceMan
Discuss.


I've read through this whole thread, and seen some good points by many people searching to define God and His reasoning behind our lives.


This is a normal human desire, however it is usually difficult to come to an absolute answer if God's word isn't a good enough source of reliable information for you.

Yes, I believe in predestination.

The Lord says that He knew us and had a plan and a purpose for us before we were even born. Even in our mother's womb. He knows the amount of hairs on our heads.


I would assume then that He knows who will or won't accept His Son as their saviour and live to follow His will. Meaning He knows who will and won't go to heaven.

This does and does not contradict free will. It does in our human way of thinking, because of course an action cannot truly be free if it's known beforehand, right?

Well, it's not known to us. We still make our choices, oblivious to him knowing about them, oblivious to Him in many people's cases.


I wanna toss out the "sock analogy" and things like that and have you think of it this way:


Say we conducted a study on a 16 year old virgin male.

We put him in the most comfortable, relaxing environment and bring in a hot, sexy chick. Be she Vida Guerra, or Adriana Lima, or whoever you prefer. The point is that she is who the kid, Scotty we'll call him, would be totally smitten with and also sexually turned on by.

The girl tells him that she wants to make all his fantasies come true. She says that they are safe, alone, and can take all of the time that they need. She begins to place his hands on her shoulders, neck, and breasts.


STOP.

Scotty is a normal, healthy, heterosexual male teenager.

Now if you had to make a guess, will Scotty have sex with her?



I think we'd all be smart to guess that the answer is: yes.


Now the point:

Did we take Scotty's free will away? Did we make his choices for him?

No. Of course not. But we knew what he would choose.

That may be a poor example, but that's the best way to explain it.





God knows what people will do, he just doesn't stop them from doing it. So they do in fact have free will. He's just read the script before seeing the film.


So then, is this a contradiction of God's word to : "go, and make disciples of all nations."?

If some are born to go to hell, then why preach to them? Why tell them how the love of Jesus, the Holy Spirit inside me has changed my life?



Because people are sheep and goats. Some can be led and shown the better way. And some will never budge, preferring their own sensibilites and limited grasp of the meaning of their own lives.


But we preach to all, as called by Christ, because we don't know if the person is a sheep or a goat.

Many times, it's just planting a seed. Somebody or something, many years later even, may come along to water and grow that faith.

(I tend to look at Christianity as a whole and "God's mysterious ways" as being like George Bailey in It's A Wonderfull Life... in that you never know how one choice or action, or one thing that the Lord allows to happen to you in your life.... may be responsible for something great later on.)


In any event, salvation is predestined, but only to God's knowledge.

Therefore, we live as though every single person can be saved. As far as our knowledge is concerned, they can be.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That may be a poor example, but that's the best way to explain it.

Oh no, it's a good example. But it would be a GREAT example if you finished it off with: "later, she'll 'regret' it and decide they both have to become born again virgins and get married before they can do it again."

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Oh no, it's a good example. But it would be a GREAT example if you finished it off with: "later, she'll 'regret' it and decide they both have to become born again virgins and get married before they can do it again."

ZinG!

L L Z!!!


I almost added something to that effect, but I was waiting for one of you guys to get me for it first.

Yeah, the example goes against some of the things that I advocate, but the theory's sound.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
As I stated previously, this is not a sound argument, it is a tautology.

Only if we define "tautology" using the limited information that you and I have been given. Unfortunately, we have no ability to determine if what I stated was tautological beyond this scope.

Originally posted by peejayd
* there are options... the power to choose... plus, if there is no free will, like what mr.adam_poe had said, why is there sin?

Because Adam and Eve ate the apple?

Because apparently every person since then is born in sin. We are sinners till we ask for forgiveness. We are damned till we ask for forgiveness. Which I think is a bit against free will, humanity still carrying around Adam and Eve's original sins.

Shouldn't, if we have free will, be given the chance to eat the fruit ourselves, rather then be defined by the fact two people in the incredibly distant past did it for us? Wouldn't what Pelagius said make more sense? We aren't actually born in sin, we don't have sin in us till we consciously choose to do so? That is we are already saved till we do something to stop it, rather then the other way round - we are damned till we do something about it? Really that aspect just seems to insure all people believe they have no choice but to become a Christian - "humanity can't help but be sinful. You are all sinners, whether you know it or not. But we can save you through Jesus."



Not sure what that has to do with us being made in his image but with apparently no real relation to what he is or can do or know other then the claim we will live after death, but ok.



God, mysterious ways. I'm with yah.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I wanna toss out the "sock analogy" and things like that and have you think of it this way:

Of course you would; You are attempting to redefine the argument, because you cannot refute the argument that has been presented.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
Say we conducted a study on a 16 year old virgin male.

We put him in the most comfortable, relaxing environment and bring in a hot, sexy chick. Be she Vida Guerra, or Adriana Lima, or whoever you prefer. The point is that she is who the kid, Scotty we'll call him, would be totally smitten with and also sexually turned on by.

The girl tells him that she wants to make all his fantasies come true. She says that they are safe, alone, and can take all of the time that they need. She begins to place his hands on her shoulders, neck, and breasts.


STOP.

Scotty is a normal, healthy, heterosexual male teenager.

Now if you had to make a guess, will Scotty have sex with her?



I think we'd all be smart to guess that the answer is: yes.


Now the point:

Did we take Scotty's free will away? Did we make his choices for him?

No. Of course not. But we knew what he would choose.

That may be a poor example, but that's the best way to explain it.

Not only is this a poor example, but it also comitts the logic fallacy of False Analogy.

In this instance, "we" do not know what the boy will do. Rather, we infer what the boy will do based soley on information we already know about sexually-peaked, heterosexual boys, etc.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
God knows what people will do, he just doesn't stop them from doing it. So they do in fact have free will. He's just read the script before seeing the film.

It is evident by the nature of the existence of a "script" that events are fixed and unchangeable, i.e. free will does not exist.




Originally posted by sithsaber408
So then, is this a contradiction of God's word to : "go, and make disciples of all nations."?

Yes.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Because Adam and Eve ate the apple?

Because apparently every person since then is born in sin. We are sinners till we ask for forgiveness. We are damned till we ask for forgiveness. Which I think is a bit against free will, humanity still carrying around Adam and Eve's original sins.

Shouldn't, if we have free will, be given the chance to eat the fruit ourselves, rather then be defined by the fact two people in the incredibly distant past did it for us? Wouldn't what Pelagius said make more sense? We aren't actually born in sin, we don't have sin in us till we consciously choose to do so? That is we are already saved till we do something to stop it, rather then the other way round - we are damned till we do something about it? Really that aspect just seems to insure all people believe they have no choice but to become a Christian - "humanity can't help but be sinful. You are all sinners, whether you know it or not. But we can save you through Jesus."


I understand what you mean. I originally had difficulty reconciling the whole original sin thing myself(in fact I still somewhat do). But I've come to the understanding(limited albeit) that choice was necessary, in order to allow man to have a truly loving relationship with his creator.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Not sure what that has to do with us being made in his image but with apparently no real relation to what he is or can do or know other then the claim we will live after death, but ok.


I know I kind of oversimplifed it, but that really is it in a nutshell. God is love. His very nature is a loving one. If you can accept this, then you will have an easier time accepting that we are indeed made in his image, and that we are created for the distinct purpose of being able to share this love and affection with him.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
God, mysterious ways. I'm with yah.


True. I think that sometimes though, we make him more mysterious and difficult to understand than he actually is.

Originally posted by Thundar
Only if we define "tautology" using the limited information that you and I have been given. Unfortunately, we have no ability to determine if what I stated was tautological beyond this scope.

You just responded to an accusation of tautological rationalization with another tautological rationalization.

Do you even know what it is that you are saying?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Say we conducted a study on a 16 year old virgin male.


Is he Gay or Straight ?




Originally posted by sithsaber408
We put him in the most comfortable, relaxing environment and bring in a hot, sexy chick. Be she Vida Guerra, or Adriana Lima, or whoever you prefer.


droolio


How about Beyonce ? Or Carmen Electra ??? droolio








Originally posted by sithsaber408
The point is that she is who the kid, Scotty we'll call him, would be totally smitten with and also sexually turned on by.


How do you know that ?


How do you know he is straight ? You have no way of truly knowing what goes on in his mind. If he is homo (like 100% homo), then he will not be turned on.....




Originally posted by sithsaber408
The girl tells him that she wants to make all his fantasies come true. She says that they are safe, alone, and can take all of the time that they need. She begins to place his hands on her shoulders, neck, and breasts.



If he is Straight, then chances are he will go for it. He may not if he truly believes in that Christian "I have to stay a virgin" crap


If he is Gay, chances are he won't go for it, unless he wants to keep his sexuality a secret, have sex with her, just to bragg about it later as cover







Originally posted by sithsaber408
I think we'd all be smart to guess that the answer is: yes.



There is a MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR difference between giving a successful and estimated guess on what will occur, and Truly knowing what decision he will make because you saw his future....

The two are not the same


Your analogy is horrible, and I can't beleive you don't see that. (well actually I can, you've said far wierder things before)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You just responded to an accusation of tautological rationalization with another tautological rationalization.


Which of course, is based on our limited understandings of the words tautology and rationalization.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Do you even know what it is that you are saying?


Yes I do, but again..like yourself, I can only understand what's being said, based on the limited information that's been presented. It's quite probable that an individual who possesses more knowledge of the terminology, could consider our definition(s) erroneous.

Still, neither of us can really ascertain what conclusion such a knowledgeable individual(sic) will come to, because we don't possess the necessary knowledge(like himself) to make such a determination.

Argument ended due to our limited knowledge of tautological rationalizations.

Originally posted by Thundar
Which of course, is based on our limited understandings of the words tautology and rationalization.

Yes I do, but again..like yourself, I can only understand what's being said, based on the limited information that's been presented. It's quite probable that an individual who possesses more knowledge of the terminology, could consider our definition(s) erroneous.

Still, neither of us can really ascertain what conclusion such a knowledgeable individual(sic) will come to, because we don't possess the necessary knowledge(like himself) to make such a determination.

Argument ended due to our limited knowledge of tautological rationalizations.

Speak for yourself.

The idea that omniscience precludes free will is based on the idea that the future is unchangeable.

Since God is outside of time--at least, in my opinion--and there in the past, present, and future, events occurring right now could change the future, which would then be known by God (in the future) and thus known by God (in the past). Of course, this leads to freakish loops and why thought experiments can cause headaches.

Originally posted by FeceMan
The idea that omniscience precludes free will is based on the idea that the future is unchangeable.

Since God is outside of time--at least, in my opinion--and there in the past, present, and future, events occurring right now could change the future, which would then be known by God (in the future) and thus known by God (in the past). Of course, this leads to freakish loops and why thought experiments can cause headaches.

Nothing that exists outside of time can be the cause of temporal changes. Therefore, God must exist inside of time in order to act as a causal agent in the world.

According to quantum mechanics, temporal events occur simultaneously in alternate or parallel histories, and sequentially in self-consistent timelines.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Nothing that exists outside of time can be the cause of temporal changes. Therefore, God must exist inside of time in order to act as a causal agent in the world.


Based on this answer, I'm assuming that at some point you've existed outside of time to come to this conclusion.

Originally posted by Thundar
Based on this answer, I'm assuming that at some point you've exsisted outside of time to come to this conclusion.

...by definition.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...by definition.

Damn. Got me before I could hit the edit button.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...by definition.

But still one has to take into consideration that the definition of time given to us, is a very limited one. Without possessing a complete understanding of time, then none of us are really qualified to say what is possible to do outside of it.

Originally posted by Thundar
But still one has to take into consideration that the definition of time given to us, is a very limited one. Without possessing a complete understanding of time, then none of us are really qualified to say what is possible to do outside of it.

What argument have you been reading? No one is speculating about what is possible for one to do outside of time. The argument is that only things that exist inside of time can be the cause of temporal changes. Hence, for God to be a causal agent in the world, He must exist inside of time. Perhaps you should not post unless you have a clear understanding of what is being discussed.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What argument have you been reading? No one is speculating about what is possible for one to do outside of time.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Nothing that exists outside of time can be the cause of temporal changes.


Checkmate. And an easy one at that.

I can only assume that by making this current argument so easy to refute, you were of the impression that people reading your most recent post, were unable to use the scroll bar.

Originally posted by Thundar
Checkmate. And an easy one at that.

I can only assume that by making this current argument so easy to refute, you were of the impression that people reading your most recent post, were unable to use the scroll bar.

I bet you don't understand what the word temporal means.

Originally posted by Thundar
Checkmate. And an easy one at that.

I can only assume that by making this current argument so easy to refute, you were of the impression that people reading your most recent post, were unable to use the scroll bar.

Funnily enough, the argument above can be used to rationalize why one who has limited knowledge and control over time, cannot ascertain what one can do with it.

Let's rephrase the initial argument a bit:

"Adam_Poe has limited knowledge of other's abilities when utilizing the scroll bar, so he doesn't really know what others are capable of when controlling the scroll bar."

Now if we replace "the scroll bar" with "time" and replace "others" with "God" in the statement above, we end up with the following argument:

"Adam_Poe has limited knowledge of God's abilities when utilizing time, so he doesn't really know what God is capable of when controlling time."

Of course I had to change a few additional words a bit, for the sake of subject-verb agreement. Other than that, I believe the words "God" and "time" fit in quite nicely when substituted.

Originally posted by Thundar
But still one has to take into consideration that the definition of time given to us, is a very limited one. Without possessing a complete understanding of time, then none of us are really qualified to say what is possible to do outside of it.


If you argue that we all have limitted understanding of certain concepts, then how do you know that you don't have a limitted, and possibly incorrect, understanding of God and Life ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If you argue that we all have limitted understanding of certain concepts, then how do you know that you don't have a limitted, and possibly incorrect, understanding of God and Life ?

*holds up arm and waves hand*
I know this on, I know, I know...

*puts arm down once I am call on*

the bible told him/her.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
*holds up arm and waves hand*
I know this on, I know, I know...

*puts arm down once I am call on*

the bible told him/her.



Me: "Why do you beleive in the Bible ?"

Thundar: "Because God wrote it"

Me: "How do you know God wrote it ?"

Thundar" Because the Bible says so"

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If you argue that we all have limitted understanding of certain concepts, then how do you know that you don't have a limitted, and possibly incorrect, understanding of God and Life ?

WRONGS

IF UR KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITTED..THEN A PERSON who ONLY BELEIFS that THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THINGS WITH THE LIMITTED BELEIFS THAT THEY KNOW.

this does NOT mean PERSON IS SAYING THAT THEY UNDERSTAND GOD WITH THIER LIMITTED KNOWLEDGES. IT just MEANS THEY CAN'T COMPLETEDLY BE sure of what CAN and CANNOT be done by GOD.

BAD TRY

Originally posted by YO_IMURBRO
WRONGS

IF UR KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITTED..THEN A PERSON who ONLY BELEIFS that THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THINGS WITH THE LIMITTED BELEIFS THAT THEY KNOW.

this does NOT mean PERSON IS SAYING THAT THEY UNDERSTAND GOD WITH THIER LIMITTED KNOWLEDGES. IT just MEANS THEY CAN'T COMPLETEDLY BE sure of what CAN and CANNOT be done by GOD.

BAD TRY



You should read the thread before posting.

Originally posted by YO_IMURBRO
WRONGS

IF UR KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITTED..THEN A PERSON who ONLY BELEIFS that THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THINGS WITH THE LIMITTED BELEIFS THAT THEY KNOW.

this does NOT mean PERSON IS SAYING THAT THEY UNDERSTAND GOD WITH THIER LIMITTED KNOWLEDGES. IT just MEANS THEY CAN'T COMPLETEDLY BE sure of what CAN and CANNOT be done by GOD.

BAD TRY







Shut up Usagi Yojimbo...next time make a sock that isn't so similiar to your LAST sock, okay ?

Originally posted by YO_IMURBRO
WRONGS

IF UR KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITTED..THEN A PERSON who ONLY BELEIFS that THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THINGS WITH THE LIMITTED BELEIFS THAT THEY KNOW.

this does NOT mean PERSON IS SAYING THAT THEY UNDERSTAND GOD WITH THIER LIMITTED KNOWLEDGES. IT just MEANS THEY CAN'T COMPLETEDLY BE sure of what CAN and CANNOT be done by GOD.

BAD TRY



Why does KMC let retarded people into the religion forum?

How can you be sure that you cannot be sure of God's abilities to infulence your belief about his abilities. Based on your arguments no argument of any sort can ever be made due to theoretical abilities you are ascribing to God. (ask me if you need the big words traslated for you)

In a forum for discussion it is always assumed that a discussion is possible otherwise it would not exist.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Nothing that exists outside of time can be the cause of temporal changes. Therefore, God must exist inside of time in order to act as a causal agent in the world.

According to quantum mechanics, temporal events occur simultaneously in alternate or parallel histories, and sequentially in self-consistent timelines.
He's God. He can do things.

kk

Originally posted by FeceMan
He's God. He can do things.

I'm human I can do things too . . . .

Besides what good reason could god have to defy logic anyway? (not including "God works in mysterious ways" as an answer)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm human I can do things too . . . .
Betcha that you can't create the universe by willing it into existence.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Betcha that you can't create the universe by willing it into existence.

thats what you think (hehehe)

Originally posted by FeceMan
Betcha that you can't create the universe by willing it into existence.



Unless the Universe always existed, but in different forms....hence, matter cannot be created or destroyed

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Unless the Universe always existed, but in different forms....hence, matter cannot be created or destroyed

No point of creation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No point of creation.




Life is only meaningful because we make it meaninful....if someone truly beleives thier existance is meaningless, than it is....

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why does KMC let retarded people into the religion forum?

How can you be sure that you cannot be sure of God's abilities to infulence your belief about his abilities. Based on your arguments no argument of any sort can ever be made due to theoretical abilities you are ascribing to God. (ask me if you need the big words traslated for you)

In a forum for discussion it is always assumed that a discussion is possible otherwise it would not exist.

Although its quite obvious that Yo_IMURBRO often times presents himself poorly, if you really analyze what he said, you'll see that his basic point was actually a very good one. If I'm interpreting what he said correctly, I think what he was alluding to was that when one possesses limited knowledge, one can only come up with limited conclusions.

Let me simplify a bit. Time is a very abstract concept. Quite frankly put, none of us in this physical world really has a grasp of it. We know it exists(at least to us), but that's really all we know.

One of the most brilliant scientists of the century(perhaps one of the most brilliant minds ever), Albert Einstien, has even alluded to the impossibility of man being able to understand the true nature of time, and that time itself is most likely an illusionary concept, put in place by a supreme being to assist man.

So when an individual states something like the following:



And states so in such an affirmitive/conclusive manner, it's quite apparent that such an argument being made is an extremely limited one, regardless of how eloquent it is in presentation.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Life is only meaningful because we make it meaninful....if someone truly beleives thier existance is meaningless, than it is....

I think you are partially correct. I believe that first, we have to have faith in God to give us a purpose. Next, we need to have a desire to fulfill whatever purpose God has given us. After we have done this, the final step is having contentment with the purpose we've been given, and enough faith in our God to carry us to its end.

Originally posted by Thundar
I think you are partially correct. I believe that first, we have to have faith in God to give us a purpose.


I beleive you have to beleive your life is meaningful for it to be meaningful




Originally posted by Thundar
Next, we need to have a desire to fulfill whatever purpose God has given us.


You will never know what purpose your God has given you...you will only do what you think this character wants you to do, based on what other people say



Originally posted by Thundar
After we have done this, the final step is having contentment with the purpose we've been given, and enough faith in our God to carry us to its end.



So according to you, all people who do not beleive in God are worthless ?

Originally posted by Thundar
But still one has to take into consideration that the definition of time given to us, is a very limited one. Without possessing a complete understanding of time, then none of us are really qualified to say what is possible to do outside of it.

The definition of time has not been given to us. We decided upon it.

I am not arguing whether it applies, it might be wrong, just saying in case it does that was a contradicition.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Betcha that you can't create the universe by willing it into existence.

Then again I would bet you anything (according to you I bet my eternal soul) that neither did a God.

Originally posted by Thundar
Next, we need to have a desire to fulfill whatever purpose God has given us.

My god given purpose is to not believe in God

NOW STOP INTERFERING WITH GOD'S PLAN!

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Unless the Universe always existed, but in different forms....hence, matter cannot be created or destroyed
Erm...no.

God isn't subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Erm...no.

God isn't subject to the laws of thermodynamics.


I know...God is only subject to human mythology

Originally posted by FeceMan
Erm...no.

God isn't subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

It might be.
It might not exist.
or
It might indeed not be.

Yeah, I agree..

Originally posted by debbiejo


Yeah, I agree.. That is not to not agree on though. Those are the possibilities. 2 being a subcategory of 3 obviously.

To be or not to be...That is the question..

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Acts 13:48 addresses Gentiles,

* you know what Gentiles are, right? two verses above it...

"And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the uttermost parts of the earth."
Acts 13:46-47

* Gentiles were not offered salvation before... until Saint Paul came and preached to them the word of God... wrong interpretation of predestination...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 addresses non-Christians.

* just another 2 verses above it...

"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders,
And with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."
II Thessalonians 2:9-10

* they refused to love the truth and so be saved... err, refusing... predestination or free will?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I posted seven verses in which God predetermines who will believe in Him, who will not believe in Him, who He will glorify, who He will condemn, on whom He will have mercy, etc.

* yes, seven misinterpreted verses taken out of context...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
and you have posted one verse that does not even address free will.

* the power to choose? does not address free will?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Nice try.

* yeah, nice try...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well Deuteronomy is talking about curses, not free will. The whole book is about the "Laws, festivals and Sabbaths."

* choosing is not free will?

Originally posted by debbiejo
And there wasn't a church at that time.

* wrong...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Also there was no teaching of hell by Moses.

* wrong...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Only curses for not following the laws.

* to follow and to follow not... choosing this or that... yeah, not free will...

Originally posted by peejayd
* choosing is not free will?



* wrong...



* wrong...



* to follow and to follow not... choosing this or that... yeah, not free will...

Prove it, please.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So according to you, all people who do not beleive in God are worthless ?

*according to me mr. Urizen, anything that doesn't include Love, regardless of how great it may seem..is worthless...cause God is Love..my friend...

Originally posted by Thundar
*according to me mr. Urizen, anything that doesn't include Love, regardless of how great it may seem..is worthless...cause God is Love..my friend...

If a psychopath LOVES commiting murder then is that something God likes?

That wouldn't fit under the Biblical definition of love, so no.

Originally posted by Thundar
Checkmate. And an easy one at that.

I can only assume that by making this current argument so easy to refute, you were of the impression that people reading your most recent post, were unable to use the scroll bar.

Whether or not one who is outside of time can affect temporal changes is not in question as I will illustrate.




Originally posted by Thundar
Funnily enough, the argument above can be used to rationalize why one who has limited knowledge and control over time, cannot ascertain what one can do with it.

Let's rephrase the initial argument a bit:

"Adam_Poe has limited knowledge of other's abilities when utilizing the scroll bar, so he doesn't really know what others are capable of when controlling the scroll bar."

Now if we replace "the scroll bar" with "time" and replace "others" with "God" in the statement above, we end up with the following argument:

"Adam_Poe has limited knowledge of God's abilities when utilizing time, so he doesn't really know what God is capable of when controlling time."

Of course I had to change a few additional words a bit, for the sake of subject-verb agreement. Other than that, I believe the words "God" and "time" fit in quite nicely when substituted.

A better analogy would be, "Just as one who is outside of a room cannot affect anything inside of the room, one who exists outside of time cannot affect anything inside of time."

Moreover, your analogy concedes that God exists inside of time by stating that He is able to "control," "utilize," or otherwise act as a causal agent or affect temporal changes.

Food for thought:
What if God operates both inside and outside of time? Does that not fit a description of omnipotence?

I believe that God does indeed work within time as prophecy would indicate, but time is not the same to God as it is to us, which the Bible indicates.

Originally posted by Thundar
Although its quite obvious that Yo_IMURBRO often times presents himself poorly, if you really analyze what he said, you'll see that his basic point was actually a very good one. If I'm interpreting what he said correctly, I think what he was alluding to was that when one possesses limited knowledge, one can only come up with limited conclusions.

Let me simplify a bit. Time is a very abstract concept. Quite frankly put, none of us in this physical world really has a grasp of it. We know it exists(at least to us), but that's really all we know.

Again, speak for yourself; see below.




Originally posted by Thundar
One of the most brilliant scientists of the century(perhaps one of the most brilliant minds ever), Albert Einstien, has even alluded to the impossibility of man being able to understand the true nature of time, and that time itself is most likely an illusionary concept, put in place by a supreme being to assist man.

This view of time is antithetical to the theory of special relativity that he proposed in 1951. By all means, supply the quote.




Originally posted by Thundar
So when an individual states something like the following:

And states so in such an affirmitive/conclusive manner, it's quite apparent that such an argument being made is an extremely limited one, regardless of how eloquent it is in presentation.

Time is currently one of the few fundamental quantities, i.e. a set of units for physical quantities from which every other unit can be generated. Stop projecting uncertainty where none exists.

Originally posted by peejayd
* you know what Gentiles are, right? two verses above it...

* Gentiles were not offered salvation before... until Saint Paul came and preached to them the word of God... wrong interpretation of predestination...



How many Gentiles believed? "As many as had been appointed to eternal life." The inclusion of the additional verses changes nothing.




Originally posted by peejayd
* just another 2 verses above it...

* they refused to love the truth and so be saved... err, refusing... predestination or free will?



Why did they not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved? Because God sent "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth." Again, the inclusion of the additional verses changes nothing.




Originally posted by peejayd
* yes, seven misinterpreted verses taken out of context...

I have not misrepresented or taken out of context any of the verses in question.




Originally posted by peejayd
* the power to choose? does not address free will?

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well Deuteronomy is talking about curses, not free will. The whole book is about the "Laws, festivals and Sabbaths." And there wasn't a church at that time. Also there was no teaching of hell by Moses. Only curses for not following the laws.




Originally posted by peejayd
* yeah, nice try...

I wish I could say the same to you.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Food for thought:
What if God operates both inside and outside of time? Does that not fit a description of omnipotence?

I believe that God does indeed work within time as prophecy would indicate, but time is not the same to God as it is to us, which the Bible indicates.




The problem however, is the fact that God has performed actions in a linear sense, according to the Bible, suggesting that he does exist in a time frame. The Bible says nothing about God not existing within or without Time, so you're argument is pure personal opinion.

Dude, you so can't manifest temporal acceleration and then another power during the apparent time frame...

What?

I mean, THUNDERCATS!

Originally posted by FeceMan
Dude, you so can't manifest temporal acceleration and then another power during the apparent time frame...

What?


I can when using the sword of omens..it gives me "sight beyond sight."

Originally posted by FeceMan
I mean, THUNDERCATS!


You forgot to say "Hoooo!!" Peasent..

I hate when that happens. Messes up the joke.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Dude, you so can't manifest temporal acceleration and then another power during the apparent time frame...

Temporal phasing would not necessarily preclude the manifestation of other powers within an accelerated field, but those powers with time-dependent properties would be distorted to the degree of relative fifth-dimensional displacement.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How many Gentiles believed? "As many as had been appointed to eternal life." The inclusion of the additional verses changes nothing.

* that's why i'm asking you, if you know what Gentiles are... Gentiles are known to be unbelievers and non-Jewish... now, how does free will gets into the picture? the Jews believed that they are the ones who will be saved by God, not the Gentiles... that notion is true in the time of Moses...

"Then he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and he came and stood before him; and he said, Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel; so accept now a present from your servant."
II Kings 5:15

* there is no God in all the earth but in Israel... are the Gentiles appointed to eternal life in this dispensation? nope, my friend because there is no God in all the earth but in Israel... now, what happened next? time comes when Israel turned their backs on God, the result is...

"For a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law;"
II Chronicles 15:3

* God left them... and Jesus said...

"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it."
Matthew 21:43

* then, Saint Paul came along, and together with Saint Barnabas, they preached the word of God to the Gentiles, because they (Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas) were commanded to be the light of the Gentiles... God offered salvation to the Gentiles in the time of Christianity... whereas in the time of Moses, there is no God in all the earth but in Israel... i hope this clears things up...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why did they not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved? Because God sent "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth." Again, the inclusion of the additional verses changes nothing.

* no no no, my friend... that's not the way to interpret it... verses 9 & 10 was written (obviously) before verses 11 & 12... so verses 11 & 12 are the effect and verses 9 & 10 are the cause, not the other way around...

"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders,
And with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false,
So that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
II Thessalonians 2:9-12

* the point is, why did God sent them a strong delusion? because they refused to love the truth... take note of the conjunctions, my friend...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have not misrepresented or taken out of context any of the verses in question.

* oh, yes you did, my friend... yes, you did...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I wish I could say the same to you.

* yeah, me too...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Prove it, please.

* sure...

Originally posted by debbiejo
And there wasn't a church at that time.

"And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:"
Exodus 4:21-22

* take note of Moses and Israel, God's firstborn...

"And so fearful was the appearance, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:
But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels,
To the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,"
Hebrews 12:21-23

* the Church of the Firstborn -> Israel...

Originally posted by debbiejo
Also there was no teaching of hell by Moses.

"The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently."
Luke 16:16

* time element... the law of Moses and the prophets in the Old Testament were until John the Baptist... in the book of prophet Daniel...

"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
Daniel 12:2

* the opposite of everlasting life is everlasting contempt... that is hell... and it was mentioned in one of the books written by Moses...

"For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains."
Deuteronomy 32:22

* and hell was also mentioned several verses in the Old Testament...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In no way does the above quote state:

Rather, it is in reference to his theory of Special Relativity which states that all observers will measure the speed of light to be the same no matter what their state of uniform linear motion is, i.e. that distance and time are perceived differently by every observer.


I think you're inferring a lot more than I am from Einstein's quote. Past present, and future represent aspects of "time", so it's quite obvious the allusion being made is that the concept of time itself is "illusionary." So regardless of any conclusions one might draw when observing particles moving at light speeds, time itself still appears to us as a very abstract concept, and seems to not be dependant upon our observations of it.

That being stated, this still doesn't in any way refute the initial point of our knowledge, control, and experiences outside of time being extremely limited, or quite frankly put, non-existant. To insinuate otherwise is very silly.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Time is currently one of the few fundamental quantities.

Fundamental quantities are a set of units for physical quantities from which every other unit can be generated.

Other fundamental quantities include length, mass, and space.


Unless one was present at the beginning of time, then at some point they have to conclude that regardless of how "fundemantal" the methods used to measure time are, our knowledge and understanding of what time represents, is still very faith-based and speculative.

Originally posted by Thundar
I think you're inferring a lot more than I am from Einstein's quote. Past present, and future represent aspects of "time", so it's quite obvious the allusion being made is that the concept of time itself is "illusionary." So regardless of any conclusions one might draw when observing particles moving at light speeds, time itself still appears to us as a very abstract concept, and seems to not be dependant upon our observations of it.

That being stated, this still doesn't in any way refute the initial point of our knowledge, control, and experiences outside of time being extremely limited, or quite frankly put, non-existant. To insinuate otherwise is very silly.

In the quote in question, "the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion," is a direct reference to his theory of Special Relativity in which "distance and time are perceived differently by every observer."

In other words, why is the distinction between the past, present, and future only an illusion? Because "distance and time are perceived differently by every observer."




Originally posted by Thundar
Unless one was present at the beginning of time, then at some point they have to conclude that regardless of how "fundemantal" the methods used to measure time are, our knowledge and understanding of what time represents, is still very faith-based and speculative.

The term "fundamental quantity does not refer to the methods of measuring time. Rather, that time itself is a quantity so fundamental that all other methods of measurement may be derived from it.

Originally posted by peejayd
* that's why i'm asking you, if you know what Gentiles are... Gentiles are known to be unbelievers and non-Jewish... now, how does free will gets into the picture? the Jews believed that they are the ones who will be saved by God, not the Gentiles... that notion is true in the time of Moses...

* there is no God in all the earth but in Israel... are the Gentiles appointed to eternal life in this dispensation? nope, my friend because there is no God in all the earth but in Israel... now, what happened next? time comes when Israel turned their backs on God, the result is...

* God left them... and Jesus said...

* then, Saint Paul came along, and together with Saint Barnabas, they preached the word of God to the Gentiles, because they (Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas) were commanded to be the light of the Gentiles... God offered salvation to the Gentiles in the time of Christianity... whereas in the time of Moses, there is no God in all the earth but in Israel... i hope this clears things up...

Again, how many Gentiles believed? "As many as had been appointed to eternal life."




Originally posted by peejayd
* no no no, my friend... that's not the way to interpret it... verses 9 & 10 was written (obviously) before verses 11 & 12... so verses 11 & 12 are the effect and verses 9 & 10 are the cause, not the other way around...

* the point is, why did God sent them a strong delusion? because they refused to love the truth... take note of the conjunctions, my friend...

Why would God send "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth," if they had already rejected the love of the truth so as to not be saved?

In other words, why would God send "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth," if they already believed what is false, and did not believe the truth?

Surely, God is not redundant.

No, they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved, because God sent "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Temporal phasing would not necessarily preclude the manifestation of other powers within an accelerated field, but those powers with time-dependent properties would be distorted to the degree of relative fifth-dimensional displacement.
So, you're saying that they'd be empowered and maximized.

Originally posted by FeceMan
So, you're saying that they'd be empowered and maximized.

Not at all.

Imagine two men; one who is in an accelerated time frame, and one who is not.

Now imagine that each man fires a gun at a target from the same distance.

Due to the laws of conservation in physics, the bullet fired in the accelerated time frame will have a velocity 30 times greater than that of its non-accelerated counterpart, but with 1/30 of its mass.

Therefore, the total kinetic energy of both bullets is equal upon impact.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Again, how many Gentiles believed? "As many as had been appointed to eternal life."

* even so, my friend... WHEN were the Gentiles appointed to eternal life? remember II Kings 5:15, there is no God in all the earth but in Israel in the time of Moses onwards... and when we say PREDESTINATION, it denotes foreordainment, from the beginning, in advanced... are the Gentiles foreordained in the time of Moses? no, my friend...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why would God send "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth," if they had already rejected the love of the truth so as to not be saved?

In other words, why would God send "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth," if they already believed what is false, and did not believe the truth?

Surely, God is not redundant.

No, they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved, because God sent "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth."

* let us read the verse again:

"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders,
And with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false,
So that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
II Thessalonians 2:9-12

* firstly, the conjunctions that tells us which is which... "because" tells us of the cause and "therefore" tells us of the effect...

* secondly, the act of refusing is a very big proof of possessing the power of free will...

* thirdly...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, why would God send "upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they may be judged who did not believe the truth," if they already believed what is false, and did not believe the truth?

Surely, God is not redundant.

* they did not believe what is false in the first place, they REFUSED to love the truth... it means that they DO know what is true and what is false... what they did was refused to love the truth... refusing to love the truth is different from believing what is false, so God is surely not redundant...

Israel the people not a church..."Let my people go", Israel

This does not mention Israel as the first born church and it's not in the OT.

This is not Moses speaking. I said that Moses didn't teach about hell.


This is not Moses speaking. And contempt doesn't mean hell either.



Putting the whole chapter in context shows that this is metaphorical language for war against another people.

Hell only means death of the body, grave..etc. And again Moses never taught hell. And why not? He is the giver of the law, surely he would have mentioned it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In the quote in question, "the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion," is a direct reference to his theory of Special Relativity in which "distance and time are perceived differently by every observer."

In other words, why is the distinction between the past, present, and future only an illusion? Because "distance and time are perceived differently by every observer."




Holy over-redundancy for the sake of confusion and tautological mis-representation Batman!!

Now you're just making stuff up. The quote in question was actually taken from a letter written to the family of Michele Besso; a long time friend of Einstein's.

The inference made to Besso's family by Einstein upon his death, was that although his friend had passed away, death was of little consequence to him or others, since time(i.e., past, present, and future) - was only an illusion and that the "timelessness" of life itself, alluded to Besso's presence still being with all of them.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The term "fundamental quantity does not refer to the methods of measuring time. Rather, that time itself is a quantity so fundamental that all other methods of measurement may be derived from it.



When one infers that something is quantitative, regardless of whether or not they infer to it being fundementally so, then logically - they will always be referring to some form of measurement.


*very bad try with both of your above quoted arguments...my friend..

Originally posted by peejayd
* even so, my friend...

no, my friend...

* no no no, my friend...

* oh, yes you did, my friend...


*...although I respect you're right to have an opinion...and to to present your argument in the way you see fit...you might want to be careful in calling everyone who prophecies obvious lies a friend...unless your patronising or subtley mocking them...and mean the opposite of what you say...my friend.

*..either way..please remember this.....

A man who considers all people his friends quickly becomes an enemy to everyone, including himself. So don't bother telling the truth to just your friend because he already knows it, and don't bother telling the truth to just your enemy because he won't believe you. Just concentrate on being virtuous to everyone in all that you do. By doing this, you'll make others understand the invaluebleness of truth.


*so regardless of whether or not one is predestined..the true value of one's life..can only be measured by how much they themselves value the truth..

^ Are you suggesting people lie?

sockie

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Are you suggesting people lie?

sockie

"Everyone lies" - Doctor Gregory House MD

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Everyone lies" - Doctor Gregory House MD

I did not say we didn't.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I did not say we didn't.

I was answering the question that you posed.

Which was "Are you suggesting people lie?"

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was answering the question that you posed.

Oh! But your not a Christian.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oh! But your not a Christian.

Actually I am technically a practicing Christian . I just don't belive in God.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually I am technically a practicing Christian . I just don't belive in God.

Originally posted by Thundar


Holy over-redundancy for the sake of confusion and tautological mis-representation Batman!!

Now you're just making stuff up. The quote in question was actually taken from a letter written to the family of Michele Besso; a long time friend of Einstein's.

The inference made to Besso's family by Einstein upon his death, was that although his friend had passed away, death was of little consequence to him or others, since time(i.e., past, present, and future) - was only an illusion and that the "timelessness" of life itself, alluded to Besso's presence still being with all of them.

That Albert Einstein tried to console the surviving son and sister of Michele Besso in a letter is not in question.

The quote, "For us believing physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one," indicates that the world-line of a deceased loved one exists tenselessly at earlier temporal co-ordinates than those which his survivng relatives occupy.




Originally posted by Thundar


When one infers that something is quantitative, regardless of whether or not they infer to it being fundementally so, then logically - they will always be referring to some form of measurement.


*very bad try with both of your above quoted arguments...my friend..

That time is measureable is not in question, nor is it the point.

The point is that given a quantity of time, one could determine other quantities, e.g. length, mass, etc. An impossible task if physicists had "a very limited understanding of time," as you argue.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That Albert Einstein tried to console the surviving son and sister of Michele Besso in a letter is not in question.




Yes, I'm sure Einstein was trying to "console" Michele Besso's family by indicating "the world-line of a deceased loved one exists tenselessly at earlier temporal co-ordinates than those which his survivng relatives occupy."

Thank you almighty God for allowing man to create internet search engines, and allowing Adam_Poe to think that your servant was unable to use them to detect such silly lies.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That time is measureable is not in question, nor is it the point.

The point is that given a quantity of time, one could determine other quantities, e.g. length, mass, etc. An impossible task if physicists had "a very limited understanding of time," as you argue.


I understand what you're saying, but despite one's ability to measure such "quantities" given "fundamental" units of time, that still doesn't mean that one possesses enough "fundamental" knowledge to ascertain what can be done "outside" of time.

The above statement is particularly true if one has no true means of controlling a stated concept, or if all of the "fundamental quantities" used to measure such an abstract, are strictly derived from one's speculative-faith based assumptions and visual observations.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Israel the people not a church..."Let my people go", Israel

This does not mention Israel as the first born church and it's not in the OT.

This is not Moses speaking. I said that Moses didn't teach about hell.


This is not Moses speaking. And contempt doesn't mean hell either.



Putting the whole chapter in context shows that this is metaphorical language for war against another people.

Hell only means death of the body, grave..etc. And again Moses never taught hell. And why not? He is the giver of the law, surely he would have mentioned it.
Sheol does not mean death of the body alone. It is very distinct from the other translated as the grave that does mean the death of the body. That word is keber. The books written by Moses mention Sheol in the following places:
Genesis 37:35, 42:38, 44:29, 44:31, Numbers 16:30, 16:33, Deuteronomy 32:22. So yes, Moses did indeed talk about and mention it, but for a man like him that followed God it wasn't of great concern as it shouldn't be.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If an omniscient being knows that you will put on a pair of socks of a particular color, then you have to put on the color that the omniscient being knows that you will put on.

For if it is possible for you to put on a color other than the color that the omniscient being knows that you will put on, then the omniscient being is not truly omniscient.

However, if it is not possible for you to put on a color other than the color that the omniscient being knows that you will put on, then you do not have free will, only the semblance thereof.


I thought about this quote and the paradox Adam presented for a bit, and decided that he made a very good point.

But consider this for a moment if you will; what if it was possible for a being with omniscience, to will himself not to be "all knowing" about the little things that take place in our daily lives?(i.e., putting socks on, brushing our teeth, what to wear, what to eat, etc)

If such an ability existed with omniscience, then that would rule out an omniscient God having control over these types of decisions that one makes. Of course this is all assuming that we really know what such a being considers to be the "little things."

If you really take some time to ponder about this argument, all sorts of unlimited possibilities come into play, specifically those pertaining to how much control God allows(or wills) himself to have during this convoluted thing we call life.

Not to take away from what has just been posted, but I just remembered 3 various passages regarding God existing outside of time, and having control over it.

Joshua 10:12-14

Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

"O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies

Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

There was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.


So according to the verses above the "sun" and the "moon" were literally stopped, giving one the implication that God stopped time so that the Israelites would be successful in defeating the Amorites.

Originally posted by Thundar


Yes, I'm sure Einstein was trying to "console" Michele Besso's family by indicating "the world-line of a deceased loved one exists tenselessly at earlier temporal co-ordinates than those which his survivng relatives occupy."

Thank you almighty God for allowing man to create internet search engines, and allowing Adam_Poe to think that your servant was unable to use them to detect such silly lies.

Albert Einstein absolutely tried to console the surviving son and sister of Michele Besso by indicating the relative nature of time, i.e. while their deceased loved one does not exist in their time frame, that he still exists in earlier time frames.




Originally posted by Thundar
I understand what you're saying, but despite one's ability to measure such "quantities" given "fundamental" units of time, that still doesn't mean that one possesses enough "fundamental" knowledge to ascertain what can be done "outside" of time.

The above statement is particularly true if one has no true means of controlling a stated concept, or if all of the "fundamental quantities" used to measure such an abstract, are strictly derived from one's speculative-faith based assumptions and visual observations.

No, you do not understand what is being stated, otherwise you would not continue with these ignorant arguments.

Time is not an abstract concept, it is a dimension that can be measured. The curvature of spacetime around an object is as much a feature of that object as its mass and volume.

It does not follow from being able to control a property that one understands it, nor does it follow from being able to understand a property that one is able to control it, e.g. it does not follow from being able to control a motorvehicle that one understands how it operates; it does not follow from understanding how gravity works that one is able to manipulate it, etc.

Originally posted by Thundar
I thought about this quote and the paradox Adam presented for a bit, and decided that he made a very good point.

But consider this for a moment if you will; what if it was possible for a being with omniscience, to will himself not to be "all knowing" about the little things that take place in our daily lives?(i.e., putting socks on, brushing our teeth, what to wear, what to eat, etc)

If such an ability existed with omniscience, then that would rule out an omniscient God having control over these types of decisions that one makes. Of course this is all assuming that we really know what such a being considers to be the "little things."

If you really take some time to ponder about this argument, all sorts of unlimited possibilities come into play, specifically those pertaining to how much control God allows(or wills) himself to have during this convoluted thing we call life.

Then He would not truly be omniscient.

Originally posted by Thundar
Not to take away from what has just been posted, but I just remembered 3 various passages regarding God existing outside of time, and having control over it.

Joshua 10:12-14

Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,

"O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon."

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies

Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

There was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel.


So according to the verses above the "sun" and the "moon" were literally stopped, giving one the implication that God stopped time so that the Israelites would be successful in defeating the Amorites.

Even if we presume that God can control time, it does not follow from this that He exists outside of it. To the contrary, it indicates that He exists inside of time as nothing that exists outside of time can be the cause of temporal changes.

What if exists both inside and outside time?

Originally posted by Nellinator
What if exists both inside and outside time?

One cannot exist inside and outside of time simultaneously, but can exist inside and outside of time intermittently.

How do you know for sure though.

Originally posted by debbiejo
How do you know for sure though.

If you have one foot in a room, and one foot outside of the room, are you inside or outside of the room?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If you have one foot in a room, and one foot outside of the room, are you inside or outside of the room? But we have limited knowledge on how the universe might work from our point of view. From outside our view things may work differently..

There is no inside or outside of time.

They can blend into one another...Well, these are theories though..

Originally posted by debbiejo
They can blend into one another...Well, these are theories though..


You are so silly. OK, can you be inside or outside of Left?

Maybe.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Maybe.

What was that? Something just rolled across the floor. It was Deb's brain. See what you get for having a too opened mind.

We only have some knowledge of the sciences at our disposal. If it was proved that this certain theory was correct? One cannot say for sure how things ultimately work now can they....That's why it's good to be open minded Mr. Chanting Spam....lol

Originally posted by debbiejo
We only have some knowledge of the sciences at our disposal. If it was proved that this certain theory was correct? One cannot say for sure how things ultimately work now can they....That's why it's good to be open minded Mr. Chanting Spam....lol

According to Relativity, time is space. That is why it is called space-time.

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html

Chanting Spam

We don't have all the answers. At one time Newton was correct in all things just as at one time Einstein was correct in all things.
We are now finding out that with knowledge things work much differently just as we could find out that what we believe to be true is not so.

Hmm, but this is OT.......this is a predestination thread for gods sake.......hahahaha