CSNbbs

(02-20-2018 11:28 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 10:47 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]You edited this post almost 2 hours after you first made it. You're covering your tracks, because I could have sworn that you downplayed Adam and Eve and the fall to emphasize personal accountability. Rereading this post, it looks like those ideas were sanitized. I'll post the quote I found where you put a lot more emphasis on the importance of the first 11 chapters of Genesis - which I assume puts a lot more importance on Adam and Eve's sin. My guess is your thinking on this has since evolved - probably because of one of your youtube subscritpions to a pastor that you follow.

Quote:So we are allowed to believe a man ROSE FROM THE DEAD on the 3rd day and later ascended into heaven, but we can't believe in Gen 1-11?

That is a total contradiction in every way

Obviously none of this applies to you because you aren't a believer.

Jesus lived and taught everything on the basis of a LITERAL Genesis 1-11. How can one be a believer in Him and His Resurrection, but reject the foundation of everything He said and believed in?

You don't grasp the depth of this. If Genesis 1-11 is NOT literally true, then there is NO NEED for a Savior or for Jesus at all. There is nothing for Him to fulfill and NO ONE needs any salvation or redemption to God in any way, shape or from. If you don't believe in Gen 1-11 then you have totally destroyed the entire foundation for Christ and redemption.

ETA: Source of this quote is from this thread (post #30) http://csnbbs.com/thread-821466-page-3.html

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel to try and avoid some real simple points here.

YOU ARE NOT WITHOUT SIN. You choose to sin every day and refuse to repent or accept Christ as your saviour. You need a Savior because YOU ARE A SINNER. So am I and so is everyone else here.

If Adma and Eve had not eaten of the tree, you never would have known what sin was, would have been born into a world that was NOT fallen because of sin, and it would not be an issue for you. Thus there would be no need of a Savior.

But indeed Gen 1-11 did happen, and the world is a fallen world now, and we are ALL sinners which means we need a Savior.

That includes YOU. YOU are a sinner, it is your choice to repent of your sin and accept Jesus as your saviour. You are not required to repent of Adam and Eve's sin, you are required to repent of YOUR OWN SINS.

You can obsessively dig up every post and comment I have ever made here, it's not going to change these 2 facts. and these 2 facts are not in conflict.

There is no contradiction or change in position here at all, and you KNOW there isn't in your heart.

I hate to say this Eric, but I'm not bothering to read your comments any further. I know what I saw prior to your edit - roughly 2 hours after your first post. I see even in this reply you came back and did edits 90 minutes after your first post. I have no idea what your originally posted only to modify later. I've seen you called out on this too many times to take your posts seriously any longer. I observed your post hoc edits in several threads - with one of the more obvious examples of your edit spree occurring in a thread about the Great Pyramid. I don't care to find the thread to link it here, but I'm sure enough people are aware of it who are reading this thread.

Eric, you need help. I think you also need to do a lot of introspection and change your tone when it comes to evangelizing. Based on what little I've seen of your posting, you probably turn people away from Christ as much as you may bring into the fold. JMHO.

(02-21-2018 02:40 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: [ -> ]The difference is the Bible laying out the entire life of Christ, the fall of Jerusalem, the Gentiles Church age, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land in the last days, STILL rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, the WHOLE BALL OF WAX all laid out centuries before Christ was born or anything that followed.

Only the REAL LIVING GOD can foretell 2000+ years of history before it ever comes to pass, and only one religion in the world has such evidence, or even attempts to give such evidence for that matter.

Nonsense.

The witnesses are unreliable and the stories are too complicated to be true. It's a book of parables and short stories written by anonymous authors over the course of a 1,000 years. Not even debatable. There are no towers of salt, no burning bushes, no turning water to wine. All parables.

Remember, if it's not possible that God created the Earth in 7 days, or that water literally turned to wine, or that a burning bush spoke outloud, or even one sentence in the Bible is not true then maybe it's also not possible for one man to die for the transgressions of another.

(02-21-2018 09:00 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I hate to say this Eric, but I'm not bothering to read your comments any further. I know what I saw prior to your edit - roughly 2 hours after your first post. I see even in this reply you came back and did edits 90 minutes after your first post. I have no idea what your originally posted only to modify later. I've seen you called out on this too many times to take your posts seriously any longer. I observed your post hoc edits in several threads - with one of the more obvious examples of your edit spree occurring in a thread about the Great Pyramid. I don't care to find the thread to link it here, but I'm sure enough people are aware of it who are reading this thread.

Eric, you need help. I think you also need to do a lot of introspection and change your tone when it comes to evangelizing. Based on what little I've seen of your posting, you probably turn people away from Christ as much as you may bring into the fold. JMHO.

I think you are just looking for a way out again because your typical trolling of all things Christian has again blown up in your face.

If you honestly think I made a dishonest change to any of my posts, you would have already pointed it out instead of avoiding any specifics and instead just taking your ball and going home.

You want to troll, troll, troll and then turn around and play the victim when your own arguments fall completely apart with basic logic and scripture.

(02-21-2018 09:05 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2018 02:40 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: [ -> ]The difference is the Bible laying out the entire life of Christ, the fall of Jerusalem, the Gentiles Church age, the return of the Jews to the Holy Land in the last days, STILL rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, the WHOLE BALL OF WAX all laid out centuries before Christ was born or anything that followed.

Only the REAL LIVING GOD can foretell 2000+ years of history before it ever comes to pass, and only one religion in the world has such evidence, or even attempts to give such evidence for that matter.

Nonsense.

The witnesses are unreliable and the stories are too complicated to be true. It's a book of parables and short stories written by anonymous authors over the course of a 1,000 years. Not even debatable. There are no towers of salt, no burning bushes, no turning water to wine. All parables.

Remember, if it's not possible that God created the Earth in 7 days, or that water literally turned to wine, or that a burning bush spoke outloud, or even one sentence in the Bible is not true then maybe it's also not possible for one man to die for the transgressions of another.

Witnesses?

Are you saying the church for the last 2000 years has not been 99% Gentile instead of Jew?

Are you saying Israel was not destroyed in 70 AD and the Jews dispersed across the world for almost 2000 years?

Are you saying the United Nations did not reform the nation of Israel in 1948 following the holocaust almost 2000 years after it was destroyed by Rome?

Are you saying the Holy Land today is not filled with lost Jews who still reject Jesus as their Messiah?

These points and many others are not in dispute, and they have all been fulfilled just as written over the last 2600+ years. We have still surviving copies of these text that are 2300 years old in some cases.

(02-21-2018 09:14 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2018 09:00 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I hate to say this Eric, but I'm not bothering to read your comments any further. I know what I saw prior to your edit - roughly 2 hours after your first post. I see even in this reply you came back and did edits 90 minutes after your first post. I have no idea what your originally posted only to modify later. I've seen you called out on this too many times to take your posts seriously any longer. I observed your post hoc edits in several threads - with one of the more obvious examples of your edit spree occurring in a thread about the Great Pyramid. I don't care to find the thread to link it here, but I'm sure enough people are aware of it who are reading this thread.

Eric, you need help. I think you also need to do a lot of introspection and change your tone when it comes to evangelizing. Based on what little I've seen of your posting, you probably turn people away from Christ as much as you may bring into the fold. JMHO.

I think you are just looking for a way out again because your typical trolling of all things Christian has again blown up in your face.

If you honestly think I made a dishonest change to any of my post, you would have already pointed it out instead of avoiding any specifics and instead just taking your ball and going home.

You want to troll, troll, troll and then turn around and play the victim when your own arguments fall completely apart wiht basic logic and scripture.

Bullsh!t. You never address points that you disagree with and will repeat canned posts. You regularly talk across people and will simply "declare victory" without real give and take discussion. You accuse me of trolling in this thread; however, I would say we were having a good discussion in general until you showed up slinging verses, declaring victory and insulting those who disagree with you. If anyone was trolling in this thread (among others) - it's you.

(02-21-2018 09:23 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]Bullsh!t. You never address points that you disagree with and will repeat canned posts. You regularly talk across people and will simply "declare victory" without real give and take discussion. You accuse me of trolling in this thread; however, I would say we were having a good discussion in general until you showed up slinging verses, declaring victory and insulting those who disagree with you. If anyone was trolling in this thread (among others) - it's you.

I think you are just mad like you always are because you had no point.

You were trying to argue there was some contradiction between Adam and Eves sin and personal sin today, or that I had contradicted myself in some way. There was no contradiction at all though, you were just twisting things.

Adam and Eve brought sin into the world, and without them eating of the tree we would not know of sin. But because they did eat of the tree, we now know of sin and willfully sin. And we now need a Savior from our sins.

You are not required to repent of Adam and Eve's sin, you are required to repent of YOUR OWN SIN.

ALL have sinned. They brought sin into the world and we have willingly partaken in it.

(02-21-2018 09:14 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2018 09:00 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I hate to say this Eric, but I'm not bothering to read your comments any further. I know what I saw prior to your edit - roughly 2 hours after your first post. I see even in this reply you came back and did edits 90 minutes after your first post. I have no idea what your originally posted only to modify later. I've seen you called out on this too many times to take your posts seriously any longer. I observed your post hoc edits in several threads - with one of the more obvious examples of your edit spree occurring in a thread about the Great Pyramid. I don't care to find the thread to link it here, but I'm sure enough people are aware of it who are reading this thread.

Eric, you need help. I think you also need to do a lot of introspection and change your tone when it comes to evangelizing. Based on what little I've seen of your posting, you probably turn people away from Christ as much as you may bring into the fold. JMHO.

I think you are just looking for a way out again because your typical trolling of all things Christian has again blown up in your face.

If you honestly think I made a dishonest change to any of my post, you would have already pointed it out instead of avoiding any specifics and instead just taking your ball and going home.

You want to troll, troll, troll and then turn around and play the victim when your own arguments fall completely apart wiht basic logic and scripture.

I also think your approach and tone are more damaging than Christian.

(02-21-2018 09:32 AM)Claw Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2018 09:14 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2018 09:00 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]I hate to say this Eric, but I'm not bothering to read your comments any further. I know what I saw prior to your edit - roughly 2 hours after your first post. I see even in this reply you came back and did edits 90 minutes after your first post. I have no idea what your originally posted only to modify later. I've seen you called out on this too many times to take your posts seriously any longer. I observed your post hoc edits in several threads - with one of the more obvious examples of your edit spree occurring in a thread about the Great Pyramid. I don't care to find the thread to link it here, but I'm sure enough people are aware of it who are reading this thread.

Eric, you need help. I think you also need to do a lot of introspection and change your tone when it comes to evangelizing. Based on what little I've seen of your posting, you probably turn people away from Christ as much as you may bring into the fold. JMHO.

I think you are just looking for a way out again because your typical trolling of all things Christian has again blown up in your face.

If you honestly think I made a dishonest change to any of my post, you would have already pointed it out instead of avoiding any specifics and instead just taking your ball and going home.

You want to troll, troll, troll and then turn around and play the victim when your own arguments fall completely apart wiht basic logic and scripture.

I also think your approach and tone are more damaging than Christian.

There is nothing more offensive in the world than the bible. Other Christians are often the most offended of all when you point out things they disagree with.

If you are going to be serious about the bible, people are going to be offended. I'm speaking some hard truths here at times, and those things are VERY offensive to some people.

There is a reason 80% of all churches in America don't teach out of most of the bible and only stick to a few select books. People get very offended.

Nobody is perfect or without fault/sin. Including me.

My apologies my friend, its not my intention at all to offend you. I'll take note of it though, thanks.

(02-21-2018 09:37 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: [ -> ]There is a reason 80% of all churches in America don't teach out of most of the bible and only stick to a few select books. People get very offended.

And in most cases, the vast majority of those books have names that end in "-ians." Are we Christians, reading the entire Bible, or Paulistas, reading only the Epistles of Paul?

Paul is certainly a great theologian. And his epistles were probably written closer in historical time to the actual life of Jesus than any other books. So his writings clearly should have great authority. But not total.

(02-21-2018 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2018 09:37 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: [ -> ]There is a reason 80% of all churches in America don't teach out of most of the bible and only stick to a few select books. People get very offended.

And in most cases, the vast majority of those books have names that end in "-ians." Are we Christians, reading the entire Bible, or Paulistas, reading only the Epistles of Paul.

Paul is certainly a great theologian. And his epistles were probably written closer in historical time to the actual life of Jesus than any other books. So his writings clearly should have great authority. But not total.

nice post

Its got to be the entire Bible, we just have to keep the context of who and what time periods, and who we are and where we are in scripture. For example, me not applying to myself a certain scripture about OT cleansing or sacrifice, or thinking NT water baptism brings me salvation or forgiveness of sin because of the water baptism in the Gospels.

Pauls epistles are to all the Gentile churches he helped create and teach in (though they were also to be shared with all the churches) and give us the basis of church age doctrine.

But there is no doubt understanding the bible goes well beyond just us and church age doctrine.

A lot of things Christ taught were really about the Jews and the coming Kingdom age, but He also taught a lot on the genesis of Church age doctrines as well. Things were different before the cross and Resurrection, they were different after the resurrection and the day of Pentecost, and they will be different again in the tribulation and after the 2nd coming in the Kingdom age.

All 3 are referenced and taught on in the NT, so its important we understand who and where we are in scripture to help rightly divide the different time periods. If we don't rightly divide and instead just mash everything all together, then we will get lost in a lot of bad and conflicting doctrines, even on salvation itself.

(02-20-2018 03:16 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 02:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 10:34 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 10:17 AM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-19-2018 09:38 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]What you are saying is that God intentionally planned for a world with evil. He knew that his creation was going to sin before their creation, and he was cool with that. You would be the first person who believed the Bible as inspired by God teaches that evil was part of the plan. Every other orthodox Christian priest/preacher I ever heard taught that God did not plan a world with evil.

Knowing what a person will do does not equate to forcing that person to do it.

I know my wife pretty well. A recent issue came up at home regarding some work a contractor is doing for us.

I knew exactly how she was going to respond but in no way did I cause her to respond that way.

For us humans, of course. But when you are God you are much more than a mere observer.

True. But we still have free will.

Knowing what a person will do is not the same as forcing the person to do it.

No, not among equals. However, if you are the creator and you already know what everyone will ever do and you know every single soul that will ever go to heaven and which ones will go to hell - and we know that hell is a place worst than nonexistence - then why not simply never allow that person to be born? That's the problem with the free will argument. It sounds great until you give God the attributes of omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence. Once you do that, it puts a whole lot more responsibility on the creator. If you take away the creator's unlimited power, then the free will arguments make a lot more sense. If the creator does not know where you will end up, then I could accept your points.

I saw your example related to your wife and knowing how she'll react to a contractor at your house who may have screwed something up. Technically speaking, your probability of knowing how your wife will react is quite high but it's still not the same as omnipotence where you would 100% know the future...but that's OK. I think the premise of your example is wrong. A better analogy example for the creator would be this: You know that 5 years from now that a baby will be born, the parents will abuse the child for a week and then throw the baby into the incinerator to burn while it is still alive. You know that this will be the outcome for the child 5 years into the future because you can see perfectly into the future. You cannot alter this destiny if the child is born. If you know that this is the child's destiny, why not prevent the child from ever being born?

And here we see the short-sighted over-importance an atheist would put on the microscopic portion of your time of existence spent on this Earth. The moment that baby dies, he/she is in a place of unimaginable bliss, and ten million years from that point (in Earth years, lol) it will be a mere blip on the timeline of existence of that little baby, probably not even remembered.

(02-21-2018 03:57 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 03:16 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 02:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 10:34 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 10:17 AM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]Knowing what a person will do does not equate to forcing that person to do it.

I know my wife pretty well. A recent issue came up at home regarding some work a contractor is doing for us.

I knew exactly how she was going to respond but in no way did I cause her to respond that way.

For us humans, of course. But when you are God you are much more than a mere observer.

True. But we still have free will.

Knowing what a person will do is not the same as forcing the person to do it.

No, not among equals. However, if you are the creator and you already know what everyone will ever do and you know every single soul that will ever go to heaven and which ones will go to hell - and we know that hell is a place worst than nonexistence - then why not simply never allow that person to be born? That's the problem with the free will argument. It sounds great until you give God the attributes of omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence. Once you do that, it puts a whole lot more responsibility on the creator. If you take away the creator's unlimited power, then the free will arguments make a lot more sense. If the creator does not know where you will end up, then I could accept your points.

I saw your example related to your wife and knowing how she'll react to a contractor at your house who may have screwed something up. Technically speaking, your probability of knowing how your wife will react is quite high but it's still not the same as omnipotence where you would 100% know the future...but that's OK. I think the premise of your example is wrong. A better analogy example for the creator would be this: You know that 5 years from now that a baby will be born, the parents will abuse the child for a week and then throw the baby into the incinerator to burn while it is still alive. You know that this will be the outcome for the child 5 years into the future because you can see perfectly into the future. You cannot alter this destiny if the child is born. If you know that this is the child's destiny, why not prevent the child from ever being born?

And here we see the short-sighted over-importance an atheist would put on the microscopic portion of your time of existence spent on this Earth. The moment that baby dies, he/she is in a place of unimaginable bliss, and ten million years from that point (in Earth years, lol) it will be a mere blip on the timeline of existence of that little baby, probably not even remembered.

Or...prevent the birth and green light the soul directly to heaven without any suffering at all. God should have zero problems with making that happening and there would be no detriment to his "plan". The point is that some suffering is unneeded and unnecessary.

Yesterday my wife and I met my cousin at the mall. She told us that her daughters twins died in childbirth. She immediately made it clear that they had been baptized before they died. To her it was important because she is a Catholic. Before, as a Catholic, I would have agreed with the importance of being baptized but now I don't. I didn't and wouldn't disparage her belief even if I felt she was wrong. I just nodded and smiled. Later in our conversation she said that she was having a mass for my uncle (my namesake) who was killed in WWII. She mentioned that when she had a mass for her mother that only two couples were there. I didn't have the heart to tell them that Indulgences are a Catholic invention and I didn't mention why I didn't go.

Which brings me to this thread. After reading many of the posts I realize that Eric's evangelism is like shouting into the wind. I feel that he gets exasperated with some of his posts. I can only say that at least he tried. If there's no one who believes in what he wrote at least in God's mind He can say that he tried. It's obvious that they don't want to belief. There's a verse in the Bible that states if you talk to them about God and they don't WANT to believe to just dust your sandals and keep on truckin'. That is my advice to Eric. If it was football we were playing someone would say that he gave it the ol' college try.

(02-20-2018 11:40 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 03:16 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 02:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 10:34 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 10:17 AM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]Knowing what a person will do does not equate to forcing that person to do it.

I know my wife pretty well. A recent issue came up at home regarding some work a contractor is doing for us.

I knew exactly how she was going to respond but in no way did I cause her to respond that way.

For us humans, of course. But when you are God you are much more than a mere observer.

True. But we still have free will.

Knowing what a person will do is not the same as forcing the person to do it.

No, not among equals. However, if you are the creator and you already know what everyone will ever do and you know every single soul that will ever go to heaven and which ones will go to hell - and we know that hell is a place worst than nonexistence - then why not simply never allow that person to be born? That's the problem with the free will argument. It sounds great until you give God the attributes of omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence. Once you do that, it puts a whole lot more responsibility on the creator. If you take away the creator's unlimited power, then the free will arguments make a lot more sense. If the creator does not know where you will end up, then I could accept your points.

I saw your example related to your wife and knowing how she'll react to a contractor at your house who may have screwed something up. Technically speaking, your probability of knowing how your wife will react is quite high but it's still not the same as omnipotence where you would 100% know the future...but that's OK. I think the premise of your example is wrong. A better analogy example for the creator would be this: You know that 5 years from now that a baby will be born, the parents will abuse the child for a week and then throw the baby into the incinerator to burn while it is still alive. You know that this will be the outcome for the child 5 years into the future because you can see perfectly into the future. You cannot alter this destiny if the child is born. If you know that this is the child's destiny, why not prevent the child from ever being born?

Carry the analogy out further. You know that at some point in a person's life he will experience a painful event.

Don't let that person be born.

And there went the entire human race.

There is no reason to carry the analogy further because not every painful event is on the same level regarding frequency and severity. A baby being beaten to death is not equivalent to a high school kid being rejected by their first crush.

(02-21-2018 05:16 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]Yesterday my wife and I met my cousin at the mall. She told us that her daughters twins died in childbirth. She immediately made it clear that they had been baptized before they died. To her it was important because she is a Catholic. Before, as a Catholic, I would have agreed with the importance of being baptized but now I don't. I didn't and wouldn't disparage her belief even if I felt she was wrong. I just nodded and smiled. Later in our conversation she said that she was having a mass for my uncle (my namesake) who was killed in WWII. She mentioned that when she had a mass for her mother that only two couples were there. I didn't have the heart to tell them that Indulgences are a Catholic invention and I didn't mention why I didn't go.

Which brings me to this thread. After reading many of the posts I realize that Eric's evangelism is like shouting into the wind. I feel that he gets exasperated with some of his posts. I can only say that at least he tried. If there's no one who believes in what he wrote at least in God's mind He can say that he tried. It's obvious that they don't want to belief. There's a verse in the Bible that states if you talk to them about God and they don't WANT to believe to just dust your sandals and keep on truckin'. That is my advice to Eric. If it was football we were playing someone would say that he gave it the ol' college try.

I've done everything possible to stay out of this......

how about this perspective from a devout atheist.....

eric is a bible thumper as are many

some wear white shirts riding a bike for two years b/c it their 'duty'

some walk into a cabinet and profess all sins since 'X', and all is forgiven

the savior of jews is not acknowledged as the savior

then there are 5B others that don't see anything remotely close to what any of the above....

look at it in that context......it's actually ironic how the 5B are closer to eric than the others.....

as a culture, one has to simply decide to coexist and respect what "FAITH" actually represents.....

it's why line 3 in my sig......

it's also why genetic engineering wins the game....

(02-21-2018 02:14 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote: [ -> ]Grant there is a higher power but then why are there so many different religions? And how are people so sure they follow the “right” God?

This is correct. Accepting that a higher power/being exists does not identify a specific religion or sect.

That is another topic for discussion. However, the laws of logic can be used to determine which, if any, might more accurately align with this higher power.

Often times people will reference the six blindfolded men touching an elephant to demonstrate that various religions have part of the truth but no religion has all of the truth.



But this assumes that the observer does know the actual truth. In essence, the observer has an objective viewpoint while each of the six men have their own subjective perspective.

Anyway, as I said this is a different topic.

(02-21-2018 06:35 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 11:40 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 03:16 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 02:16 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-20-2018 10:34 AM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]For us humans, of course. But when you are God you are much more than a mere observer.

True. But we still have free will.

Knowing what a person will do is not the same as forcing the person to do it.

No, not among equals. However, if you are the creator and you already know what everyone will ever do and you know every single soul that will ever go to heaven and which ones will go to hell - and we know that hell is a place worst than nonexistence - then why not simply never allow that person to be born? That's the problem with the free will argument. It sounds great until you give God the attributes of omnipotence/omniscience/omnipresence. Once you do that, it puts a whole lot more responsibility on the creator. If you take away the creator's unlimited power, then the free will arguments make a lot more sense. If the creator does not know where you will end up, then I could accept your points.

I saw your example related to your wife and knowing how she'll react to a contractor at your house who may have screwed something up. Technically speaking, your probability of knowing how your wife will react is quite high but it's still not the same as omnipotence where you would 100% know the future...but that's OK. I think the premise of your example is wrong. A better analogy example for the creator would be this: You know that 5 years from now that a baby will be born, the parents will abuse the child for a week and then throw the baby into the incinerator to burn while it is still alive. You know that this will be the outcome for the child 5 years into the future because you can see perfectly into the future. You cannot alter this destiny if the child is born. If you know that this is the child's destiny, why not prevent the child from ever being born?

Carry the analogy out further. You know that at some point in a person's life he will experience a painful event.

Don't let that person be born.

And there went the entire human race.

There is no reason to carry the analogy further because not every painful event is on the same level regarding frequency and severity. A baby being beaten to death is not equivalent to a high school kid being rejected by their first crush.

I read your example again and I think I more clearly see the point you're making.

The parents will abuse the child to the point of death.
Why not spare the child that pain by preventing the child from being born.

If this is a correct interpretation then I'm puzzled. Why prevent the child from being born when the parents are the one's performing the painful (evil) action.

Let me rephrase my point then.

Every person will at some point be the cause of an evil action regardless of scale or scope.

If each person who would at some point engage in an evil action was prevented from being born <<< poof >>> there went the entire human race.

(02-21-2018 06:47 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2018 02:14 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote: [ -> ]Grant there is a higher power but then why are there so many different religions? And how are people so sure they follow the “right” God?

This is correct. Accepting that a higher power/being exists does not identify a specific religion or sect.

That is another topic for discussion. However, the laws of logic can be used to determine which, if any, might more accurately align with this higher power.

Often times people will reference the six blindfolded men touching an elephant to demonstrate that various religions have part of the truth but no religion has all of the truth.



But this assumes that the observer does know the actual truth. In essence, the observer has an objective viewpoint while each of the six men have their own subjective perspective.

Anyway, as I said this is a different topic.

how can one definitely say, "that is correct" w/o factual data to back it up.....

the definition of faith is so simple......and the one that is the most misunderstood.....

it's why there's a 'GOD'.....it doesn't matter what that GOD is....but it's GOD to somebody in some way, form , or fashion......

if it doesn't involve violence or defense of property and self, why should one give two fks,.,....go find the like minded sheeples and be done with it.....

oh, my bad

#algorism

#pandora

#666

(02-21-2018 06:54 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2018 06:47 PM)umbluegray Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-21-2018 02:14 AM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote: [ -> ]Grant there is a higher power but then why are there so many different religions? And how are people so sure they follow the “right” God?

This is correct. Accepting that a higher power/being exists does not identify a specific religion or sect.

That is another topic for discussion. However, the laws of logic can be used to determine which, if any, might more accurately align with this higher power.

Often times people will reference the six blindfolded men touching an elephant to demonstrate that various religions have part of the truth but no religion has all of the truth.



But this assumes that the observer does know the actual truth. In essence, the observer has an objective viewpoint while each of the six men have their own subjective perspective.

Anyway, as I said this is a different topic.

how can one definitely say, "that is correct" w/o factual data to back it up.....

the definition of faith is so simple......and the one that is the most misunderstood.....

it's why there's a 'GOD'.....it doesn't matter what that GOD is....but it's GOD to somebody in some way, form , or fashion......

if it doesn't involve violence or defense of property and self, why should one give two fks,.,....go find the like minded sheeples and be done with it.....

oh, my bad

#algorism

#pandora

#666

Unfortunately most tend to focus on the differences and not the similarities

(02-21-2018 05:16 PM)olliebaba Wrote: [ -> ]Yesterday my wife and I met my cousin at the mall. She told us that her daughters twins died in childbirth. She immediately made it clear that they had been baptized before they died. To her it was important because she is a Catholic. Before, as a Catholic, I would have agreed with the importance of being baptized but now I don't. I didn't and wouldn't disparage her belief even if I felt she was wrong. I just nodded and smiled. Later in our conversation she said that she was having a mass for my uncle (my namesake) who was killed in WWII. She mentioned that when she had a mass for her mother that only two couples were there. I didn't have the heart to tell them that Indulgences are a Catholic invention and I didn't mention why I didn't go.

Which brings me to this thread. After reading many of the posts I realize that Eric's evangelism is like shouting into the wind. I feel that he gets exasperated with some of his posts. I can only say that at least he tried. If there's no one who believes in what he wrote at least in God's mind He can say that he tried. It's obvious that they don't want to belief. There's a verse in the Bible that states if you talk to them about God and they don't WANT to believe to just dust your sandals and keep on truckin'. That is my advice to Eric. If it was football we were playing someone would say that he gave it the ol' college try.

That's why I ask the question, "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?"

If the person says no, then it's not an objection based on rational thought. Instead, this usually means the person does not want God to exist and opposes the idea for personal reasons.

And that's fine. Well, I feel for them, but I mean fine in the sense that they have made their own decision.