Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A few questions for ardent Christians

progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:45:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
A few things I feel that any Christian -- and I mean people who follow the Bible and believe it is literally true -- should be able to answer:

1. The flood, in accordance with your Bible, occurred 4800 years. How is this possible when we have no evidence that such a flood occurred -- and, actually, geological evidence to the contrary?

2. If the story of Adam and Eve literally happened, are we all related to each other because we resulted from inbreeding? Is incest acceptable, by this standard?

3. If you answered the last question with "Well, after Jesus came....." then answer this: if that's the case, how is morality objective?

4. This is for calvinists: does predestination disprove free will? Is there any point in having free will if you're destined to hell, anyway? Why would God create anyone who is destined for hell?

5. How do you reconcile the fact that much of the Bible was subject to political corruption and compiled up to 300 years after Jesus' passing?

6. Do you dispute evolution? If so, how can you deny something with plenty of evidence for something with no evidence? If not, how would you reconcile the fact that the Bible says the earth was created in 6 literal days -- which I take it you would interpret as increments of time, as the Vatican has -- when evolution is still occurring?

7. How does Jesus' sacrifice mean anything when he -- as God himself -- is sacrificing himself to save us from himself because he himself created us with the capacity for sin?

8. How can God be concurrently omnibenevolent when suffering is still allowed to occur? I thought he was omnipotent.

9. If your answer to the above question was "free will," how can you make this argument and still hold to predestination -- or, to any degree at all, the notion that "God has a plan" or "God operates in mysterious ways"?

10. Another "free will" question: Was it possible for Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge? If they never did, death wouldn't be possible, right? That's largely the reason he created the deceptive serpent in the first place, correct? Why does his framework require that his creatures sin, and then punish them when they do it -- by a flood, by hell, etc.?

11. If God is concurrently omnibenevolent and omniscient, could he know how it feels to hold an incenstuous thought? If yes, is he still omnibenevolent? If not, is he still omniscient?

12. If God is omniscient, does he know everything that will happen? If so, how is free will even possible?

13. Why did God intervene in several places in the Old Testament -- e.g., hardening the Pharoah's heart -- and not only punish those people for things he himself did (and knew would happen because he's omniscient), but then not intervene to alleviate suffering? It's difficult to argue "free will" when he has done it before. And, not to mention, intervening to stop a robber from killing someone impacts the free will of the robber. But allowing the robbery to happen removes free will from the person being assaulted. So this is an even trade off, is it not? Why is the robber's freedom to kill more important than the victim's freedom to live?
XLAV
Posts: 13,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:50:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I will answer the first few questions.

At 4/27/2014 9:45:44 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
A few things I feel that any Christian -- and I mean people who follow the Bible and believe it is literally true -- should be able to answer:

1. The flood, in accordance with your Bible, occurred 4800 years. How is this possible when we have no evidence that such a flood occurred -- and, actually, geological evidence to the contrary?
The flood evaporated.

2. If the story of Adam and Eve literally happened, are we all related to each other because we resulted from inbreeding? Is incest acceptable, by this standard?
To answer your first question, yes. Which is also why we have stupid people in this world. For the second question, no, because we don't want anymore dumb people in this world.


3. If you answered the last question with "Well, after Jesus came....." then answer this: if that's the case, how is morality objective?
The bible said so.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:48:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:45:44 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Hi progressivedem22. I was about to pass over your post when I decided that that would be unfair. Though the chances are high that you are just yet another ignorant atheist who thinks he's come up with an original thought, I shouldn't pre-judge, right? Also your post having only a single reply made me feel sorry for you. So here are my answers.

A few things I feel that any Christian -- and I mean people who follow the Bible and believe it is literally true -- should be able to answer:

1. The flood, in accordance with your Bible, occurred 4800 years. How is this possible when we have no evidence that such a flood occurred -- and, actually, geological evidence to the contrary?

The Bible gives no indication for when the flood occurred. Even given that, you are mistaken. Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. Noah lived at lease 4,000 years before Jesus. The flood would then be at least 6,000 years ago give or take a couple of hundred years. You say there is no geological evidence. I am willing to bet that during this very thread, we will find that you know very little about geology and are mistaken about what you call "evidence to the contrary." Bet?

2. If the story of Adam and Eve literally happened, are we all related to each other because we resulted from inbreeding? Is incest acceptable, by this standard?

Of course. The law was not put on the books till well after Adam and Eve. If there is no law against a behavior, it cannot be an infraction.

But I'm a little confused. If evolution is true, and we all come from a single ancestor, that would mean much more incest occurred with evolution than with Christianity. Are you comfortable with that?

3. If you answered the last question with "Well, after Jesus came....." then answer this: if that's the case, how is morality objective?

I haven't a clue what this means. Either way, my answer did not include, "After Jesus came....."

4. This is for calvinists: does predestination disprove free will? Is there any point in having free will if you're destined to hell, anyway? Why would God create anyone who is destined for hell?

Be glad I'm not a calvinist, otherwise you would have to watch your "create anyone destined for Hell" get ripped to shreds for the illogical rubbish it is.

5. How do you reconcile the fact that much of the Bible was subject to political corruption and compiled up to 300 years after Jesus' passing?

lol. Do you know how old the oldest copies of the Bible we have are? Google it so we think you knew before you posted this. Can you point out any part of the Bible which was politically corrupted? No? The compiling thing is argumentation by innuendo so I need not address it till you man up and say what you mean to say outright.

6. Do you dispute evolution?

Some of it yes, as do many prominent scientists.

If so, how can you deny something with plenty of evidence for something with no evidence?

Whew! There is so much ignorance here I don't know what to swing at first. Ok, first, neither Christianity or evolution are substitutes for each other. Second, do you know how silly you seem to observers when you claim there is "no evidence" for something believed by billions of people for over 2,000 years? What you can say is you personally see no convincing evidence. Also, can we add evolution to the things I'm betting you know nothing about? I have a feeling is all.

If not, how would you reconcile the fact that the Bible says the earth was created in 6 literal days -- which I take it you would interpret as increments of time, as the Vatican has -- when evolution is still occurring?

You have to get your facts right. Who told you the Bible says it was 6 literal days? Did you read that? If so, please point it out to us. If you heard it then isn't it amazing that you have started a thread based on something you were told, when you could have easily read the information yourself?

7. How does Jesus' sacrifice mean anything when he -- as God himself -- is sacrificing himself to save us from himself because he himself created us with the capacity for sin?

God is not saving us from Himself. You are simply ignorant of Christian doctrine. That would be no biggie if you weren't online now trying to fake being informed. You are ignorant for 2 main reasons. First, you are too lazy to study for yourself and find it convenient to have your thinking done for you by authors of atheist websites. And second, you believe that hitting a few websites is a worthy substitute for actual learning.

8. How can God be concurrently omnibenevolent when suffering is still allowed to occur? I thought he was omnipotent.

God is not omnibenevolent. Well perhaps you aren't talking about Christianity. Are you? If you are, where did you read that God was omnibenevolent? Can you show us? If you heard it then isn't it amazing that you have started a thread based on something you were told, when you could have easily read the information yourself?

9. If your answer to the above question was "free will," how can you make this argument and still hold to predestination -- or, to any degree at all, the notion that "God has a plan" or "God operates in mysterious ways"?

My answer wasn't free will. Oops. Not going as smoothly as you imagined in your mind huh?

10. Another "free will" question: Was it possible for Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge?

Of course.

If they never did, death wouldn't be possible, right?

I haven't the slightest idea.

That's largely the reason he created the deceptive serpent in the first place, correct?

Huh? You lost me. What is the reason someone created the deceptive serpent?

Why does his framework require that his creatures sin, and then punish them when they do it -- by a flood, by hell, etc.?

Require? Where do you get that? Really, shouldn't you know what the Bible says BEFORE you start swinging at it? You don't have to believe it, but so as not to look like an idiot, you should at least know it.

11. If God is concurrently omnibenevolent and omniscient, could he know how it feels to hold an incenstuous thought? If yes, is he still omnibenevolent? If not, is he still omniscient?

What is omnibenevolent? And when atheists say this, what do they mean?

12. If God is omniscient, does he know everything that will happen? If so, how is free will even possible?

Can you explain how a person knowing what you will do takes away your free will? Can you show us how that works?

13. Why did God intervene in several places in the Old Testament -- e.g., hardening the Pharoah's heart -- and not only punish those people for things he himself did (and knew would happen because he's omniscient), but then not intervene to alleviate suffering?

You seem to think it is God's duty to alleviate your suffering. Why? Why is He bad for not being your personal genie/slave?

It's difficult to argue "free will" when he has done it before. And, not to mention, intervening to stop a robber from killing someone impacts the free will of the robber.

How was the will of the robber stopped? Do you know that if a prosecutor can prove you were going to rob and kill someone, but you were stopped by someone else, you still get convicted of robbery and murder? What was stopped was the crime, not the robbers will.

But allowing the robbery to happen removes free will from the person being assaulted.

How so? You must have one of those personal definitions of free will.

Why is the robber's freedom to kill more important than the victim's freedom to live?

If you saw a robber about to kill your mom, which would you think was more important? Don't answer. I know you would think your mom's freedom to live was more important than a robber's freedom to kill. Now, ask yourself, "Why would I think that?

Ta daa!
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:17:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh hey, some guy called me ignorant for no reason whatsoever, and assumed that I'm an atheist, even though I'm agnostic.

I'll respond to your illogical nonsense after my exams.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:27:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.

I have no interest in twisting the knife, actually. I want to have an intelligent discussion on these issues. I've spoken to plenty very intelligent Christians who acknowledge that we have disagreements on these issues, but there's room for rational debate -- granted, none of them are Bible literalists, but this thread was addressed at them (which this idiot who posted hasn't the slightest clue about since he's too busy going on a self-righteous claim against people who believe in logic and reason over superstition).
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:33:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:27:58 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.

I have no interest in twisting the knife, actually. I want to have an intelligent discussion on these issues. I've spoken to plenty very intelligent Christians who acknowledge that we have disagreements on these issues, but there's room for rational debate -- granted, none of them are Bible literalists, but this thread was addressed at them (which this idiot who posted hasn't the slightest clue about since he's too busy going on a self-righteous claim against people who believe in logic and reason over superstition).

No, there can be no rational debate over Christianity. If you think there can be then you are searching for answers for your problems in religion. And if it's not that then it's just having fun twisting the knife.

Now stop lying and trying to fuk with the minds of your intellectual superiors.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:36:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:33:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:27:58 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.

I have no interest in twisting the knife, actually. I want to have an intelligent discussion on these issues. I've spoken to plenty very intelligent Christians who acknowledge that we have disagreements on these issues, but there's room for rational debate -- granted, none of them are Bible literalists, but this thread was addressed at them (which this idiot who posted hasn't the slightest clue about since he's too busy going on a self-righteous claim against people who believe in logic and reason over superstition).


No, there can be no rational debate over Christianity. If you think there can be then you are searching for answers for your problems in religion. And if it's not that then it's just having fun twisting the knife.

Now stop lying and trying to fuk with the minds of your intellectual superiors.

Who are my intellectual superiors?
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:46:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:36:55 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:33:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:27:58 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.

I have no interest in twisting the knife, actually. I want to have an intelligent discussion on these issues. I've spoken to plenty very intelligent Christians who acknowledge that we have disagreements on these issues, but there's room for rational debate -- granted, none of them are Bible literalists, but this thread was addressed at them (which this idiot who posted hasn't the slightest clue about since he's too busy going on a self-righteous claim against people who believe in logic and reason over superstition).


No, there can be no rational debate over Christianity. If you think there can be then you are searching for answers for your problems in religion. And if it's not that then it's just having fun twisting the knife.

Now stop lying and trying to fuk with the minds of your intellectual superiors.

Who are my intellectual superiors?

Don't worry about it, just have some fun and when you say something worth commenting upon I'll be here to tell you what you're really up to. You could only have one of the two purposes. Rational? LOL
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:48:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:46:16 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:36:55 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:33:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:27:58 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.

I have no interest in twisting the knife, actually. I want to have an intelligent discussion on these issues. I've spoken to plenty very intelligent Christians who acknowledge that we have disagreements on these issues, but there's room for rational debate -- granted, none of them are Bible literalists, but this thread was addressed at them (which this idiot who posted hasn't the slightest clue about since he's too busy going on a self-righteous claim against people who believe in logic and reason over superstition).


No, there can be no rational debate over Christianity. If you think there can be then you are searching for answers for your problems in religion. And if it's not that then it's just having fun twisting the knife.

Now stop lying and trying to fuk with the minds of your intellectual superiors.

Who are my intellectual superiors?

Don't worry about it, just have some fun and when you say something worth commenting upon I'll be here to tell you what you're really up to. You could only have one of the two purposes. Rational? LOL

You're not making any sense. I highly doubt that you're my intellectual superior, anyway.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:50:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:48:59 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:46:16 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:36:55 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:33:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:27:58 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.

I have no interest in twisting the knife, actually. I want to have an intelligent discussion on these issues. I've spoken to plenty very intelligent Christians who acknowledge that we have disagreements on these issues, but there's room for rational debate -- granted, none of them are Bible literalists, but this thread was addressed at them (which this idiot who posted hasn't the slightest clue about since he's too busy going on a self-righteous claim against people who believe in logic and reason over superstition).


No, there can be no rational debate over Christianity. If you think there can be then you are searching for answers for your problems in religion. And if it's not that then it's just having fun twisting the knife.

Now stop lying and trying to fuk with the minds of your intellectual superiors.

Who are my intellectual superiors?

Don't worry about it, just have some fun and when you say something worth commenting upon I'll be here to tell you what you're really up to. You could only have one of the two purposes. Rational? LOL

You're not making any sense. I highly doubt that you're my intellectual superior, anyway.

If you don't understand then that clinches it. Have a nice day!
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 1:53:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:50:39 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:48:59 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:46:16 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:36:55 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:33:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:27:58 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.

I have no interest in twisting the knife, actually. I want to have an intelligent discussion on these issues. I've spoken to plenty very intelligent Christians who acknowledge that we have disagreements on these issues, but there's room for rational debate -- granted, none of them are Bible literalists, but this thread was addressed at them (which this idiot who posted hasn't the slightest clue about since he's too busy going on a self-righteous claim against people who believe in logic and reason over superstition).


No, there can be no rational debate over Christianity. If you think there can be then you are searching for answers for your problems in religion. And if it's not that then it's just having fun twisting the knife.

Now stop lying and trying to fuk with the minds of your intellectual superiors.

Who are my intellectual superiors?

Don't worry about it, just have some fun and when you say something worth commenting upon I'll be here to tell you what you're really up to. You could only have one of the two purposes. Rational? LOL

You're not making any sense. I highly doubt that you're my intellectual superior, anyway.

If you don't understand then that clinches it. Have a nice day!

There isn't anything to understand. You told me to sit back and wait for you to come here when you think I've said something worthwhile -- implying that what I say isn't, which a lot of people would disagree with -- and that you know my intentions better than I do and should inform me of them.

Dude, I actually defended you in a conversation with jifpop. Please, for the love of God whose existence I doubt, don't prove him right, because that's exactly what you're doing right now. I know you love to call people dumb, but I'm not one of them.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 2:00:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:45:44 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
1. The flood, in accordance with your Bible, occurred 4800 years. How is this possible when we have no evidence that such a flood occurred -- and, actually, geological evidence to the contrary?

I think we have evidence that the Flood happened (Oil and gas fields, many mountains, modern continents, The grand Canyon... ...The story about it in the Bible)

http://www.kolumbus.fi...

2. If the story of Adam and Eve literally happened, are we all related to each other because we resulted from inbreeding? Is incest acceptable, by this standard?

It was acceptable in that situation. And I think it worked, because people had not yet been degenerated as much as nowadays.

4. This is for calvinists: does predestination disprove free will? Is there any point in having free will if you're destined to hell, anyway? Why would God create anyone who is destined for hell?

I think he gives this life because he loves all and wants to give this chance also for those who hate him, and love more evil.

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

Hell is according to the Bible second death and I think it is not bad.

5. How do you reconcile the fact that much of the Bible was subject to political corruption and compiled up to 300 years after Jesus' passing?

How is that "fact" proven?

6. Do you dispute evolution? If so, how can you deny something with plenty of evidence for something with no evidence?

Evolution is not proven to be true.

7. How does Jesus' sacrifice mean anything when he -- as God himself -- is sacrificing himself to save us from himself because he himself created us with the capacity for sin?

The sacrifice means that Jesus used his life for us. He spent his life by teaching people to find God. Similar way I sacrificed my time for you, although I could have used it some other way.

I think also that Jesus didn"t claim to be God, but God"s temple, God lives in him (John 14:10-14). And before he died he asked why God left him. God did not die on the cross (Matt. 27:46).

8. How can God be concurrently omnibenevolent when suffering is still allowed to occur? I thought he was omnipotent.

People wanted to know good and evil like God. That is why we are in this place to learn what they mean. Luckily nothing of this can destroy our soul. Body is only like building for soul, it can be replaced.

10. Another "free will" question: Was it possible for Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge?

Yes.

11. If God is concurrently omnibenevolent and omniscient, could he know how it feels to hold an incenstuous thought?

I don"t know any reason why he couldn"t, he just don"t want to act so, because he understands it is not good.

12. If God is omniscient, does he know everything that will happen? If so, how is free will even possible?

Free will is possible, because I have free will. And because God knows me, he can know what I will choose. And that is why he knows the end result.

13. Why did God intervene in several places in the Old Testament -- e.g., hardening the Pharoah's heart -- and not only punish those people for things he himself did (and knew would happen because he's omniscient), but then not intervene to alleviate suffering? It's difficult to argue "free will" when he has done it before. And, not to mention, intervening to stop a robber from killing someone impacts the free will of the robber. But allowing the robbery to happen removes free will from the person being assaulted. So this is an even trade off, is it not? Why is the robber's freedom to kill more important than the victim's freedom to live?

Freedom to live is different thing than free will. People can want all freely, it does not mean that they can get all what they want.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 2:07:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:33:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:27:58 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.

I have no interest in twisting the knife, actually. I want to have an intelligent discussion on these issues. I've spoken to plenty very intelligent Christians who acknowledge that we have disagreements on these issues, but there's room for rational debate -- granted, none of them are Bible literalists, but this thread was addressed at them (which this idiot who posted hasn't the slightest clue about since he's too busy going on a self-righteous claim against people who believe in logic and reason over superstition).


No, there can be no rational debate over Christianity. If you think there can be then you are searching for answers for your problems in religion. And if it's not that then it's just having fun twisting the knife.

Now stop lying and trying to fuk with the minds of your intellectual superiors.

Tryhard.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 2:35:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:48:13 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:45:44 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:

ethang5:

You response intrigued me, greatly. While I am an agnostic (raised as a christian), and your view on god obviously differs from mine, I would be greatly interested in debating the merits of the bible, with you. I don't like the ignorance that is passed off as 'informed debating' any more than you do, and I believe a debate with you would be rather enlightening...

My position:
Agnostic - No god ever presented by humanity makes any sense to me, and I despise the behavior of religious leadership and organization. This, however, does not preclude (for me) the possibility of the existence of a god.

Religion:
Anti-theist: I despise religion. I see religion as nothing short of a glorified business, with most of its leadership behaving as greedy, intentionally misleading charlatans. There are, however, people (like my little brother) that are very informed, very intelligent, and still buy into christianity. It intrigues me that blatant fallacies can be accepted, while maintaining a claim to both logical and moral high ground.

My interest:
Mine is a position of full understanding of the fact that I don't know everything, and no one else does (or can), either. I have the universe to learn, and I don't care who the teacher is, if the information is valid. In chess, one learns more by losing, than by winning. Similarly, one often obtains more from an informed individual with an opposing viewpoint than from being spoon-fed information that simply bolsters a position that has already been accepted. Being challenged makes a sharp mind work harder; the direct result is that either one gathers better information from the opposing side, or one further concretes their position through thought and research.

The ask:
If you are interested, a debate on a (very narrow) segment of christian belief (or perhaps a series of them), since the bible, dogma, doctrine, tenets, and possible positions are too broad to 'debate the bible.' If you have an interest, message me, and we can come to an agreement on topic, guidelines, parameters, etc.

I honestly believe that debating someone like you might be beneficial (to both sides). If you're game, I think I would thoroughly enjoy it.

- B
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 4:07:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:17:30 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Oh hey, some guy called me ignorant for no reason whatsoever, and assumed that I'm an atheist, even though I'm agnostic.

I'll respond to your illogical nonsense after my exams.

Agnostic about what :-\ We have agnostic theists (surprising yes, but there are), deists and atheists. Most self-described agnostics tend to be atheists and I'm glad the atheist community is on top of that problem. Agnosticism really doesn't tell anyone if you believe in a God or not irregardless of whether you are confused about it. So which agnostic are you ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 4:08:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 4:07:21 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:17:30 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Oh hey, some guy called me ignorant for no reason whatsoever, and assumed that I'm an atheist, even though I'm agnostic.

I'll respond to your illogical nonsense after my exams.

Agnostic about what :-\ We have agnostic theists (surprising yes, but there are), deists and atheists. Most self-described agnostics tend to be atheists and I'm glad the atheist community is on top of that problem. Agnosticism really doesn't tell anyone if you believe in a God or not irregardless of whether you are confused about it. So which agnostic are you ?

Eh, yeah i'm familiar with the logic behind that: agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not of belief, etc. I guess I'm an atheist by most metrics, and I'm probably a 5 on the Dawkins scale.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 4:18:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 4:08:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 4:07:21 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:17:30 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Oh hey, some guy called me ignorant for no reason whatsoever, and assumed that I'm an atheist, even though I'm agnostic.

I'll respond to your illogical nonsense after my exams.

Agnostic about what :-\ We have agnostic theists (surprising yes, but there are), deists and atheists. Most self-described agnostics tend to be atheists and I'm glad the atheist community is on top of that problem. Agnosticism really doesn't tell anyone if you believe in a God or not irregardless of whether you are confused about it. So which agnostic are you ?

Eh, yeah i'm familiar with the logic behind that: agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, not of belief, etc. I guess I'm an atheist by most metrics, and I'm probably a 5 on the Dawkins scale.

Okay.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 11:52:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 4:07:21 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:17:30 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Oh hey, some guy called me ignorant for no reason whatsoever, and assumed that I'm an atheist, even though I'm agnostic.

I'll respond to your illogical nonsense after my exams.

Agnostic about what :-\ We have agnostic theists (surprising yes, but there are), deists and atheists. Most self-described agnostics tend to be atheists and I'm glad the atheist community is on top of that problem. Agnosticism really doesn't tell anyone if you believe in a God or not irregardless of whether you are confused about it. So which agnostic are you ?

You can just be an agnostic, you know. You can just not care or know either way about whether or not God exists. Stop telling people what they believe. It's rude.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 7:19:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 11:52:47 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 4/28/2014 4:07:21 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:17:30 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Oh hey, some guy called me ignorant for no reason whatsoever, and assumed that I'm an atheist, even though I'm agnostic.

I'll respond to your illogical nonsense after my exams.

Agnostic about what :-\ We have agnostic theists (surprising yes, but there are), deists and atheists. Most self-described agnostics tend to be atheists and I'm glad the atheist community is on top of that problem. Agnosticism really doesn't tell anyone if you believe in a God or not irregardless of whether you are confused about it. So which agnostic are you ?

You can just be an agnostic, you know. You can just not care or know either way about whether or not God exists. Stop telling people what they believe. It's rude.

Ahhhh - let him grind his ax. He is not hurting anyone - he just likes to regurgitate a wikipedia worldview to others. If people get offended, they should stop listening to society telling them how sensitive they should be.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 7:40:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:45:44 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
A few things I feel that any Christian -- and I mean people who follow the Bible and believe it is literally true -- should be able to answer:

I'll take a stab at it, then.

1. The flood, in accordance with your Bible, occurred 4800 years. How is this possible when we have no evidence that such a flood occurred -- and, actually, geological evidence to the contrary?

There are lots of possibilities. Maybe the flood story was not meant to be a straight forward historical narrative like we would expect of modern historians, and we should interpret it in light of its genre rather than interpreting it in light of a different genre. Or maybe it was a local flood.

2. If the story of Adam and Eve literally happened, are we all related to each other because we resulted from inbreeding? Is incest acceptable, by this standard?

We're all related to each other whether the story of Adam and Eve is literally true or not. If it's literally true, then some kind of incest had to have happened. Perhaps incest isn't inherently wrong the same way murder is inherently wrong. Perhaps it is only forbidden because of the bad consequences it has, but perhaps for whatever reason (e.g. miracle) it didn't come with those bad consequences in the beginning.

3. If you answered the last question with "Well, after Jesus came....." then answer this: if that's the case, how is morality objective?

Morality being objective doesn't mean morality can't change with circumstances. Morality being objective means that statements such as "It's wrong to kill your mother" are true independently of our preferences or beliefs. If it turns out that incest was permissible at some point in the past but is forbidden now, that doesn't mean morality isn't objective. If incest has ever been morally wrong, then the wrongness of it is an objective moral.

After all, if the earth all of a sudden turned into a cube, that wouldn't mean there's no objective truth to what the shape of the earth is just because its shape changed.

4. This is for calvinists: does predestination disprove free will? Is there any point in having free will if you're destined to hell, anyway? Why would God create anyone who is destined for hell?

That's three questions! There are two kinds of free will--libertarian free will and compatibilist free will.

Calvinism is not necessarily inconsistent with either. Consider libertarian freedom, which is the view that our actions are not determined by any antecedent conditions, including God's will and including our own desires and motives. A Calvinist could say that we have libertarian freedom in most of our actions, but not when it comes to whether we accept or reject the gospel. In that case, a Calvinist could hold consistently to the five points of Calvinism, but still think they have free will when it comes to deciding who to marry, whether to drink Coke or Dr. Pepper, etc.

Compatibilist free will is the view that our actions are determined by our prior mental states, especially our desires and motives. We are free in the sense that we act on purpose and do what we want. We're free from being puppets, essentially. We're not forced to act against our own wills. Obviously this kind of freedom is consistent with Calvinism. God gets us to come to Jesus for salvation by influencing our desires and motives.

The point of having free will of either variety is partly because that's just what God wanted, and partly because it makes us accountable for our own actions. This is related to your last question about why God would create somebody for the purpose of sending them to hell. Some Calvinists deny that he does. In their view, God passively allows people to go to hell, but only has purposes for some to be saved. Some Calvinists (including me) believe that God has a purpose for both the saved and the unsaved. Both bring glory to God. The saved bring glory to God by demonstrating his mercy. The unsaved bring glory to God by demonstrating his wrath against sin. This relates to the previous question because without free will, there wouldn't be sin, and without sin, there would be no justification for hell.

5. How do you reconcile the fact that much of the Bible was subject to political corruption and compiled up to 300 years after Jesus' passing?

I don't see any contradiction between the Bible being subject to political corruption and the Bible being compiled 300 years after Jesus, so I don't know what you're asking me to reconcile.

6. Do you dispute evolution? If so, how can you deny something with plenty of evidence for something with no evidence? If not, how would you reconcile the fact that the Bible says the earth was created in 6 literal days -- which I take it you would interpret as increments of time, as the Vatican has -- when evolution is still occurring?

I've got a 7th grade education in biology, and although I've read some books on evolution and intelligent design, I haven't really understood enough to have a competent decision based on the evidence. I can only rely on authorities. Since the vast majority of authorities believe in evolution, I lean heavily that way myself.

I think the 6 day motif in the Bible is a literary device, just like the seven seals in Revelation. It's not an attempt to give an historical narrative of creation.

7. How does Jesus' sacrifice mean anything when he -- as God himself -- is sacrificing himself to save us from himself because he himself created us with the capacity for sin?

I'm a Trinitarian. I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. The Son died for sins. The Father is the one who dishes out wrath. So this was not a case of one person sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself.

8. How can God be concurrently omnibenevolent when suffering is still allowed to occur? I thought he was omnipotent.

If omnibenevolent means that God only does what is in the best interest of each individual, then I do not believe God is omnibenevolent.

9. If your answer to the above question was "free will," how can you make this argument and still hold to predestination -- or, to any degree at all, the notion that "God has a plan" or "God operates in mysterious ways"?

N/A

to be continued"
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 7:57:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
10. Another "free will" question: Was it possible for Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge? If they never did, death wouldn't be possible, right? That's largely the reason he created the deceptive serpent in the first place, correct? Why does his framework require that his creatures sin, and then punish them when they do it -- by a flood, by hell, etc.?

There are different kinds of possibilities--logical possibilities, physical possibilities, psychological possibilities, etc. I do think it was logically and physically possible for Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. I do not think it was psychological possible for them to not eat the fruit.

I don't know whether the death spoken of was intended to be physical death, spiritual death, or both. However, whatever it means, I think death would still be logically possible and maybe physically possible. After all, God would still have the ability to kill them. However, death in that sense wouldn't have been actual. They had a conditional immortality, the conditioning being that they didn't sin.

As far as why God made it to where people sin and then punishes them for it, it's because sin is part of how God glorifies himself. For example, he hardened Pharaoh's heart so that God could display his power in Pharaoh and make his name known.

11. If God is concurrently omnibenevolent and omniscient, could he know how it feels to hold an incenstuous thought? If yes, is he still omnibenevolent? If not, is he still omniscient?

I don't think God is omnibenevolent in the previous sense, but omniscience is the having of all propositional knowledge. There are different kinds of knowledge. God may know all facts, but that doesn't mean God knows what it's like to be a bat. So God may not know how it feels to hold an incestuous thought. But maybe he does. I don't know.

12. If God is omniscient, does he know everything that will happen? If so, how is free will even possible?

I assume you mean free will in the libertarian sense. God's knowledge that a person will do X tomorrow only entails that "The person will do X tomorrow" is true. It doesn't entail that person X can't do otherwise; it only entails that they won't do otherwise. As long as God's knowledge doesn't cause the person to do X, then they still do X freely.

I wrote a blog about this:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...

13. Why did God intervene in several places in the Old Testament -- e.g., hardening the Pharoah's heart -- and not only punish those people for things he himself did (and knew would happen because he's omniscient), but then not intervene to alleviate suffering? It's difficult to argue "free will" when he has done it before. And, not to mention, intervening to stop a robber from killing someone impacts the free will of the robber. But allowing the robbery to happen removes free will from the person being assaulted. So this is an even trade off, is it not? Why is the robber's freedom to kill more important than the victim's freedom to live?

God has no problem intervening in people's decisions. The Bible is full of examples where he does that. In each case where God influences a person's will to cause them to act in a particular way, God has particular reasons for doing so. Sometimes the Bible tells us what God's particular reason is, and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of God hardening Pharaoh's heart, the Bible tells us he did that so that he could display his power in Pharaoh. I can only assume that God has purposes in people suffering, although I don't know what his particular reason was for allowing the Hebrews to suffer under Pharaoh. Perhaps it was to increase Pharaoh's culpability so that God would be justified in pouring out his wrath on Pharaoh. Pharaoh couldn't very well be guilty of causing the Israelites to suffer if the Israelites didn't actually suffer.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 9:28:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Progessivedem, would you prefer to answer the posts so far or can I give my responses as well?

I just can't get past the fact that someone used the Grand Canyon and the Bible as evidence for a great flood 6000ish years ago.

Using the Grand Canyon as evidence I think automatically invalidates what the person has to say about scientific explanation for literal biblical events, given that it shows an obscene lack of understanding of geology and probably science in general.

Not to insult the person who said that, but it just depresses me. You don't have to take the bible literally, you know. Many, many good Christians don't. So don't feel bound to defending the literal truth of everything in the Bible, when all evidence points to the contrary.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 9:52:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

In all fairness, it's not just hard-core Christians, although I admit they exist. It can be very difficult to find an atheist or an agnostic whose mind isn't closed to logical discourse. There are a lot of people on here who aren't quite as intelligent as they think.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 9:54:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

"The scientific method is limited to using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena. It does not preclude the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs and only states that they are not part of science. Belief in a higher being is a personal, not a scientific, question." ~ Union of Concerned Scientists.

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 9:58:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 1:53:38 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:50:39 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:48:59 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:46:16 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:36:55 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:33:27 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:27:58 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:25:56 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 4/28/2014 1:19:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Wow, that entire post is full of distortions an ad hominem attacks. I expected better -- actually, no I didn't. It's a real shame that the hardcore fundamentalist Christians on this site are not only so painfully ignorant of reality, but so closed off to any semblance of a logical discourse.

Not just this site, it's the very nature of the beast. What is a Christian to do when they all realize their beliefs have been steamrolled over by science?

I just wonder what kind of a kick you get out of twisting the knife some more? That's what keeps me coming back.

I have no interest in twisting the knife, actually. I want to have an intelligent discussion on these issues. I've spoken to plenty very intelligent Christians who acknowledge that we have disagreements on these issues, but there's room for rational debate -- granted, none of them are Bible literalists, but this thread was addressed at them (which this idiot who posted hasn't the slightest clue about since he's too busy going on a self-righteous claim against people who believe in logic and reason over superstition).


No, there can be no rational debate over Christianity. If you think there can be then you are searching for answers for your problems in religion. And if it's not that then it's just having fun twisting the knife.

Now stop lying and trying to fuk with the minds of your intellectual superiors.

Who are my intellectual superiors?

Don't worry about it, just have some fun and when you say something worth commenting upon I'll be here to tell you what you're really up to. You could only have one of the two purposes. Rational? LOL

You're not making any sense. I highly doubt that you're my intellectual superior, anyway.

If you don't understand then that clinches it. Have a nice day!


There isn't anything to understand. You told me to sit back and wait for you to come here when you think I've said something worthwhile -- implying that what I say isn't, which a lot of people would disagree with -- and that you know my intentions better than I do and should inform me of them.

Dude, I actually defended you in a conversation with jifpop. Please, for the love of God whose existence I doubt, don't prove him right, because that's exactly what you're doing right now. I know you love to call people dumb, but I'm not one of them.

You're not actually begging for his approval?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 12:29:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 7:57:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
10. Another "free will" question: Was it possible for Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge? If they never did, death wouldn't be possible, right? That's largely the reason he created the deceptive serpent in the first place, correct? Why does his framework require that his creatures sin, and then punish them when they do it -- by a flood, by hell, etc.?

There are different kinds of possibilities--logical possibilities, physical possibilities, psychological possibilities, etc. I do think it was logically and physically possible for Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. I do not think it was psychological possible for them to not eat the fruit.

I don't know whether the death spoken of was intended to be physical death, spiritual death, or both. However, whatever it means, I think death would still be logically possible and maybe physically possible. After all, God would still have the ability to kill them. However, death in that sense wouldn't have been actual. They had a conditional immortality, the conditioning being that they didn't sin.

As far as why God made it to where people sin and then punishes them for it, it's because sin is part of how God glorifies himself. For example, he hardened Pharaoh's heart so that God could display his power in Pharaoh and make his name known.


11. If God is concurrently omnibenevolent and omniscient, could he know how it feels to hold an incenstuous thought? If yes, is he still omnibenevolent? If not, is he still omniscient?

I don't think God is omnibenevolent in the previous sense, but omniscience is the having of all propositional knowledge. There are different kinds of knowledge. God may know all facts, but that doesn't mean God knows what it's like to be a bat. So God may not know how it feels to hold an incestuous thought. But maybe he does. I don't know.


12. If God is omniscient, does he know everything that will happen? If so, how is free will even possible?

I assume you mean free will in the libertarian sense. God's knowledge that a person will do X tomorrow only entails that "The person will do X tomorrow" is true. It doesn't entail that person X can't do otherwise; it only entails that they won't do otherwise. As long as God's knowledge doesn't cause the person to do X, then they still do X freely.

I wrote a blog about this:

http://philochristos.blogspot.com...


13. Why did God intervene in several places in the Old Testament -- e.g., hardening the Pharoah's heart -- and not only punish those people for things he himself did (and knew would happen because he's omniscient), but then not intervene to alleviate suffering? It's difficult to argue "free will" when he has done it before. And, not to mention, intervening to stop a robber from killing someone impacts the free will of the robber. But allowing the robbery to happen removes free will from the person being assaulted. So this is an even trade off, is it not? Why is the robber's freedom to kill more important than the victim's freedom to live?

God has no problem intervening in people's decisions. The Bible is full of examples where he does that. In each case where God influences a person's will to cause them to act in a particular way, God has particular reasons for doing so. Sometimes the Bible tells us what God's particular reason is, and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of God hardening Pharaoh's heart, the Bible tells us he did that so that he could display his power in Pharaoh. I can only assume that God has purposes in people suffering, although I don't know what his particular reason was for allowing the Hebrews to suffer under Pharaoh. Perhaps it was to increase Pharaoh's culpability so that God would be justified in pouring out his wrath on Pharaoh. Pharaoh couldn't very well be guilty of causing the Israelites to suffer if the Israelites didn't actually suffer.

I think you over-shot the goalpost with those answers: they are in much more detail than the questions demand.

I simply have a comment about God hardening Pharaoh's heart. The truth is that, literally, Pharaoh hardened his own heart. God hardened Pharaoh's heart only in the indirect sense by the employment of means - and even at that God only increased the "hardness" that was already there.

"In each case where God influences a person's will to cause them to act in a particular way, God has particular reasons for doing so."

Influences a person's will? Yes. The "how" is the question, always. Certainly the preponderance of cases are by the employment of means, a medium.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 12:32:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:29:20 AM, annanicole wrote:

I think you over-shot the goalpost with those answers: they are in much more detail than the questions demand.

I enjoyed answering the questions, so I may have said more than I needed to. I would be interested in reading your answers to the questions.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 12:37:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:32:10 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:29:20 AM, annanicole wrote:

I think you over-shot the goalpost with those answers: they are in much more detail than the questions demand.

I enjoyed answering the questions, so I may have said more than I needed to. I would be interested in reading your answers to the questions.

I started to, but so many of the questions were based upon false assumptions that I decided to just kick back and read other ppl's answers. LOL
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."