Predestination

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 peejayd
* 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...

ap·point verb

[list=1][*]To name or assign to a position; designate.

[*]To determine by authority; fix; set.

[*]To order or establish by decree or command; ordain; constitute.[/list]

Originally posted by peejayd
* 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...

* 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... 😉

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?

It follows from rejecting the love of the truth so as to not be saved, that they did not believe the truth, or believed what is false.

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 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.

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.

[list=1][*]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.[/list]

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.