Originally posted by DigiMark007
He's not being useless, but stating his opinion. He can't approach it from a Christian perspective because he doesn't hold it. I don't either, but merely stated how it's not hard to do. Justifications, even illogical ones, aren't hard for the mind to create when it wants one badly enough. It doesn't mean I find Christian free will any more coherent than shakya.So useless, no. Difficult, perhaps. But that's part of the internet's charm, no?
Did you go to University?
I don't believe in Islam but I've written about it and discussed its theology even though I didn't believe in it.
I don't believe in many of the criticisms of Western Imperialism but I have still managed to write arguments against them...
Objective thought is not desirable, its mandatory.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's irrelevant so how is it useful?
It's his opinion on the subject. He's free to post it, and it isn't off-topic. That it might not further the specific intent of the thread starter is perhaps unfortunate, but irrelevant to his right to post. The thread started with a premise and asked a question. Shakya maintains that he rejects the original premise and thus can't field the question. It's a valid response.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Did you go to University?I don't believe in Islam but I've written about it and discussed its theology even though I didn't believe in it.
I don't believe in many of the criticisms of Western Imperialism but I have still managed to write arguments against them...
Objective thought is not desirable, its mandatory.
Um, wut? Objective thought is one thing for scholarly papers that offer analysis, not opinion. But are you really saying shakya should set aside his beliefs in order to discuss what he considers to be a flawed premise/question? On an internet discussion forum? I hope not.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Um, wut? Objective thought is one thing for scholarly papers that offer analysis, not opinion. But are you really saying shakya should set aside his beliefs in order to discuss what he considers to be a flawed premise/question? On an internet discussion forum? I hope not.
I am saying that going "it doesn't exist" is not a valid answer to anything. Objectivity should be carried over to all walks of life, you shouldn't leave it in the lecture theatre.
Do you honestly think you should?
Originally posted by Magee
What about people who did not know Christianity even existed? Why did God give us free will but then tell us how to live our lives, do as he says or go to hell. It would seem God is trying to bribe people to beleive in him and it's a pretty effective one.Do people go to hell for not being Christian? Is that really free will?
If you go back and read my post you will see not All Christians believe in Hell. And I agree with you "Worship me or burn for ever" sounds like a human concept not a God of Mercy, Love, Grace and Kindness. There is no choice there. Who wants to be tormented for ever. And you also have to decipher if what the Bible is saying is Figurative or Literal. This is what causes Denominations and schisms in the Church. Interpreting what is Figurative or literal.
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
The Orthodox Church ,which split from the Roman Church in 1054, Split because they interpreted the Bible to say that Satan and all who fallowed will be destroyed, to be no longer(There were other issues as well but i am addressing your question). Like it mentions in the Old Testament "Sheol" the grave ,to be dead, nothingness. So to The Orthodox the Punishment not getting to live with God (as do the Hebrews believe) in the end not burning in a lake of fire. There is also another Theological school of thought, Look it up "Apocatistasis" that All will be saved. In Pauls writing to Romans 11:32 "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief (born into sin) that he may have mercy upon ALL" SO its really only The Catholics and some Protestant denominations that even buy into the idea of an eternal damnation.
Orthodox Church (as the name suggests) didn't separate from Roman Catholic church, but other way around.
Orthodox Christianity is the oldest denomination in Christianity.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Orthodox Church (as the name suggests) didn't separate from Roman Catholic church, but other way around.Orthodox Christianity is the oldest denomination in Christianity.
The separated from each other...
The Pope in Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople mutually excommunicated each other, not over theology but over authority.
They both co-recognise each other as the Church made by Christ.
They both co-recognise the validity of each others Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession.
More recently the Eastern Orthodox Churches acknowledge the Bishop of Rome does hold primacy over all other Bishops, but they said it was only Primacy of Honour...
Neither separated from either- there was the Christian Church which split into east and west becoming the Roman Rite and the Eastern Rite.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Orthodox Church (as the name suggests) didn't separate from Roman Catholic church, but other way around.Orthodox Christianity is the oldest denomination in Christianity.
Thats not true .Each Church preached their own doctrine In the early years( Refer to the letters from Paul to note what the Churches were). The Counsel of Nicaea is famous because Constantine(Being the Western Roman Emperor tried to universalize ,wanting to bring all Churches under control making one Bible). Catholic means Universal. So the Roman Church became THE Church. There were many books and letters written that were popping up here and there from the various churches libraries so every Hundred years the Bishops of the Churches would get together and debated on whether to canonize them or not. The great schism in 1054 was over 1.That Satan is Destroyed in the end therefor, No Hell 2. whether the Eucharist was the actual body and blood of Christ or symbolic.3. whether Christ was All man and All God or just Man. The reason for the Orthodox meaning "Original" called themselves that when they broke away from the "Universal" Church is because in their eyes they were adhering to the Original ideas of Christ, And original interpretations of the Apostle and not the Catholic Vulgate .
Originally posted by Lycanthrope
Thats not true .Each Church preached their own doctrine In the early years( Refer to the letters from Paul to note what the Churches were). The Counsel of Nicaea is famous because Constantine(Being the Western Roman Emperor tried to universalize ,wanting to bring all Churches under control making one Bible). Catholic means Universal. So the Roman Church became THE Church. There were many books and letters written that were popping up here and there from the various churches libraries so every Hundred years the Bishops of the Churches would get together and debated on whether to canonize them or not. The great schism in 1054 was over 1.That Satan is Destroyed in the end therefor, No Hell 2. whether the Eucharist was the actual body and blood of Christ or symbolic.3. whether Christ was All man and All God or just Man. The reason for the Orthodox meaning "Original" called themselves that when they broke away from the "Universal" Church is because in their eyes they were adhering to the Original ideas of Christ, And original interpretations of the Apostle and not the Catholic Vulgate .
Do you have any evidence to suggest that
"1.That Satan is Destroyed in the end therefor, No Hell 2. whether the Eucharist was the actual body and blood of Christ or symbolic.3. whether Christ was All man and All God or just Man."
is anything to do with the Split? Any Church historian will tell you that the break was over authority NOT doctrine, the two rites coexisted in union for a long time ignoring each others differing practices.
You haven't even mentioned the "Proceeds from the Father and the Son" clause or, Filoque, which is the real doctrinal reason for any split, which makes me wonder how much you really know...
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I am saying that going "it doesn't exist" is not a valid answer to anything. Objectivity should be carried over to all walks of life, you shouldn't leave it in the lecture theatre.Do you honestly think you should?
Here's one of the lines that you're upset about, from one of his posts:
To me, free will is irrelevant.
The key words, I would think, are "to me." It's an opinion. He's not being dogmatic about it. And if certain posts don't include such disclaimers, we've all interacted with shakya enough to know that if he says something, he's stating it as his personal belief, not a dogmatic statement of irrefutable fact.
So it's his opinion. It's valid, backed with logic, and on-topic. I couldn't care less that it disagrees with the thread's premise, and therefore isn't the same line of discussion as you and others can have. The only troubling thing, to me, is that he's taking flak for it.
Objectivity isn't putting aside one's beliefs in order to work with something one considers flawed. It's fielding opinions and gauging them on their merits (or lack thereof) and deciding their validity (or lack therof) as with as little bias as possible
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Do you have any evidence to suggest that"1.That Satan is Destroyed in the end therefor, No Hell 2. whether the Eucharist was the actual body and blood of Christ or symbolic.3. whether Christ was All man and All God or just Man."
is anything to do with the Split? Any Church historian will tell you that the break was over authority NOT doctrine, the two rites coexisted in union for a long time ignoring each others differing practices.
You haven't even mentioned the "Proceeds from the Father and the Son" clause or, Filoque, which is the real doctrinal reason for any split, which makes me wonder how much you really know...
You are right about the split being mainly about authority. But the doctrinal differences i said are fact. I was trying to point out to A person, who might have a more positive understanding of God, that not All Christian Denominations believe in Hell and that the Bible can be interpreted in many ways due to the fact that its up to the person to decipher through prayer whether what is said is literal or figurative (Hence the Plethora of denominations).. Then I was pointing out, to another person, that Orthodox does mean original but was not the "Oldest Denomination" The oldest "Denomination" would be Catholic which means "Universal" Started by Constantine at the counsel of Nicaea. So your counter points are irrelevant to the points i was trying to make. If anyone has the slightest interest in this they can easily research what i have said and find it to be true but,I could compile a list of books i have on the History of the Church and Theology if you or anyone is interested. I was simply trying to inspire someone to grow closer to God not trying to show off that i know so much. I know what God has revealed to me. And remember Brother "Those who profess to be wise are fools" so i do not profess. I'm just a sign post.
OK, lets talk about Free Will; Free Will would mean that I have a freedom to choose, at any moment, the choice that I wished to make. However, that is never the case. There are always choices that are beyond our ability to choose. I cannot levitate, or fly or travel to a distant star. I cannot take my life, and then regain it at will. My will is limited, and there is more that I cannot do, at any moment, then what I can do. Also, my will is not free, in that for everything I do there is a cost. Just typing this post has cost me time that cannot be replace. What gives me the choices I have in front of me right now are all the choices I have made in the past. I cannot change that, because I cannot change what I am, for I can only change what I will become. The path I am taking is Karma, and Karma is not Free Will. So, is Free Will a Deceitful 'Contract'? I do not know. To me, it would be like asking if Santa Clause was mad.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, lets talk about Free Will; Free Will would mean that I have a freedom to choose, at any moment, the choice that I wished to make. However, that is never the case. There are always choices that are beyond our ability to choose. I cannot levitate, or fly or travel to a distant star. I cannot take my life, and then regain it at will. My will is limited, and there is more that I cannot do, at any moment, then what I can do. Also, my will is not free, in that for everything I do there is a cost. Just typing this post has cost me time that cannot be replace. What gives me the choices I have in front of me right now are all the choices I have made in the past. I cannot change that, because I cannot change what I am, for I can only change what I will become. The path I am taking is Karma, and Karma is not Free Will. So, is Free Will a Deceitful 'Contract'? I do not know. To me, it would be like asking if Santa Clause was mad.
You're deliberately shuffling the meaning of words to make ridiculous arguments. Also if you essentially don't believe in the question what is the point of you giving an answer?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're deliberately shuffling the meaning of words to make ridiculous arguments. Also if you essentially don't believe in the question what is the point of you giving an answer?
He initially didn't, but spoke his mind. His comments were in response to Gav's forceful suggestion that he put aside his beliefs for the sake of the thread. At this point, it would probably be best if it were dropped on all sides, since the spat between the two isn't doing anything productive.
Originally posted by LycanthropeI know this, it's the reason why I asked the question. I'm really asking the people (if there are any here) who beleive every word of the bible or at least the parts that relate to the question. I don't know what sect of Christianity that is, Catholic maybe. Although I don't expect to get a rational answer I'm still interested in what they have to say about it.
If you go back and read my post you will see not All Christians believe in Hell. [B]And I agree with you "Worship me or burn for ever" sounds like a human concept not a God of Mercy, Love, Grace and Kindness. There is no choice there. Who wants to be tormented for ever. And you also have to decipher if what the Bible is saying is Figurative or Literal. This is what causes Denominations and schisms in the Church. Interpreting what is Figurative or literal. [/B]
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonWise words. I completley agree with this.
OK, lets talk about Free Will; Free Will would mean that I have a freedom to choose, at any moment, the choice that I wished to make. However, that is never the case. There are always choices that are beyond our ability to choose. I cannot levitate, or fly or travel to a distant star. I cannot take my life, and then regain it at will. My will is limited, and there is more that I cannot do, at any moment, then what I can do. Also, my will is not free, in that for everything I do there is a cost. Just typing this post has cost me time that cannot be replace. What gives me the choices I have in front of me right now are all the choices I have made in the past. I cannot change that, because I cannot change what I am, for I can only change what I will become. The path I am taking is Karma, and Karma is not Free Will. So, is Free Will a Deceitful 'Contract'? I do not know. To me, it would be like asking if Santa Clause was mad.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
He initially didn't, but spoke his mind. His comments were in response to Gav's forceful suggestion that he put aside his beliefs for the sake of the thread. At this point, it would probably be best if it were dropped on all sides, since the spat between the two isn't doing anything productive.
Gav only suggested that he actually address the question of the thread. I don't see what's wrong with that. Shakya can spout irrelevant nonsense all he likes but he should also have to accept that people will call him out when he starts spouting irrelevant nonsense.
Originally posted by Magee
I'm really asking the people (if there are any here) who beleive every word of the bible or at least the parts that relate to the question. I don't know what sect of Christianity that is, Catholic maybe.
There isn't one. Most believe that they take the entire Bible at it's word but in reality all of them place higher emphasis on some part or another based on either the founder's beliefs or the individual's particular feelings on the subject.
The answer you'll probably get most of the time is that you argument doesn't really make sense. God gives free will, you make choices, if you make the wrong ones you are punished for it. Your mistakes aren't God's fault because you can think, you have the Bible (or other holy text) fully available to you and he/she/it/they/we/I gave you free will thus taking it out of God's hands.
Modern society has the same system. Society assumes you can think. Society has laws (or at least social guidelines) The laws are there for anyone to look at. If you break them you are punished.
I don't see what's so hard to understand.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosWhat about people who don't know about Christianity or have never had the opportunity to learn about it? A lot of people don't have a bible available to them, God's solution is to let them burn in hell.
The answer you'll probably get most of the time is that you argument doesn't really make sense. God gives free will, you make choices, if you make the wrong ones you are punished for it. Your mistakes aren't God's fault because you can think, you have the Bible (or other holy text) fully available to you and he/she/it/they/we/I gave you free will thus taking it out of God's hands.
Compariing it to the law is not the same as every one in there country has access to those laws and knows them (generally).