Thread: 10 Questions for an Intelligent Christian

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

I have freedom to make my own choices... Actions for the common good reflect God's presence while negative behavior is in direct opposition to God's benevolence. God gives us the tools to either live in His spirit or not; those who move toward God have God to thank and humble themselves in their endeavors; those who oppose God through violent and negative behaviors have God to fear and pride themselves in their ignorance...

...God helps people through people. God has called on us to help the poor and many have answered.

I never understood the whole "everything that's good is from God, everything bad is from us" mentality. If somebody creates humans, then he is responsible for their actions. I wouldn't blame a tiger for eating somebody in a zoo, it's not the animals fault for being the way it is. And the same goes in a grander scheme of gods in relation to humans.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

If you loved someone unconditionally, would you not suffer in their place? God willingly suffered because He loves you.

He was crucified because that is how Romans executed those in high treason. Crucifixion, I imagine, is quite unpleasant...

If he was god, he wouldn't need to suffer. Neither would anybody else have to suffer. That's my whole argument.

I don't know if you believe in hell... But if you do, then no, crucifixion is infinitely less unpleasant than what God does to certain people.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

How can one hear if they are unwilling to listen?

How can one hear if they are unable to listen?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I never understood the whole "everything that's good is from God, everything bad is from us" mentality. If somebody creates humans, then he is responsible for their actions. I wouldn't blame a tiger for eating somebody in a zoo, it's not the animals fault for being the way it is. And the same goes in a grander scheme of gods in relation to humans.

Are your parents responsible for your actions?

I have a class of 23 students whom I establish parameters for, yet they are responsible for their decisions in the classroom.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If he was god, he wouldn't need to suffer. Neither would anybody else have to suffer. That's my whole argument.

If you were a perfect being, perhaps the most humble decision you could make would be to create others to enjoy your presence.

Yet those you created to enjoy your benevolence have abused their freedom to create anti-benevolence.

How would you feel?

We are given the choice to love God or not. This is what makes love authentic. Would you program your child to love you before he/she is born? Would your child really love you or would he/she be robotic?

Authentic love comes from individual choice.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I don't know if you believe in hell... But if you do, then no, crucifixion is infinitely less unpleasant than what God does to certain people.

God's suffering extends beyond the cross; His spiritual suffering exists on the basis of the above analysis.

Entrance to spiritual hell, whatever it may be, is human choice. Again, this is another root to God's suffering. How would you feel if your child was sentenced to prison?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

How can one hear if they are unable to listen?

Your intelligence is what enables you.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

Are your parents responsible for your actions?

On some level, yes. But I take responsibility for my actions. One thing though... Parents, teachers, leaders - they aren't gods. All are connected and, relatively, on the same level. The omnipotent nature of God is what makes him responsible for the universe. Unless he made us gods as well?

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

If you were a perfect being, perhaps the most humble decision you could make would be to create others to enjoy your presence.

Yet those you created to enjoy your benevolence have abused their freedom to create anti-benevolence.
How would you feel?

If you really want my opinion, I would actually blame myself. Not those who never decided to exist at all. I/God made the original decision... I'm not even going to start with the fact that I knew what would have happened.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

We are given the choice to love God or not. This is what makes love authentic. Would you program your child to love you before he/she is born? Would your child really love you or would he/she be robotic?

Authentic love comes from individual choice.

Here comes the problem, since I can't really discuss this. I don't believe in this transcendental soul with free will/choice. So I believe that all love is actually programmed. Even if there is free will, for me, that doesn't excuse an infinitely powerful being for its finite actions.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

God's suffering extends beyond the cross; His spiritual suffering exists on the basis of the above analysis.

Entrance to spiritual hell, whatever it may be, is human choice. Again, this is another root to God's suffering. How would you feel if your child was sentenced to prison?

If I try and adopt such a world view for a second... I can't change the person, but I can save him by revealing myself (unambiguously). If belief in Jesus is what saves people from hell, then why doesn't he reveal himself. This is one of the most common questions, but I never got (or comprehended) the answer. If he loves us so much that he suffered on the cross, then he should also love us enough to suffer some more and send all those destined for hell to heaven.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

Your intelligence is what enables you.

Yes, I know. We can all make choices and become Christian. But answer this. If I came to you with a belief system, basically identical to yours, but different. If I told you that you won't get to heaven because you choose hell. How would you feel? You wouldn't care, you already have your own thing going on and you wouldn't act against your faith. That's the point where you or I are unable to listen/make choices who to listen to. The fact that you or I wouldn't act against our beliefs is what makes us incapable of "choice". And thus shouldn't be judged.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

On some level, yes. But I take responsibility for my actions. One thing though... Parents, teachers, leaders - they aren't gods. All are connected and, relatively, on the same level. The omnipotent nature of God is what makes him responsible for the universe. Unless he made us gods as well?

God is responsible for creating the universe and for granting us free will. Given that we have free will, we are responsible for using it as we see fit.

Let me repeat this--God is responsible for giving us freedom to make choices; our choices are our own and we hold responsibility for them. I have nothing further to say in this regard.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If you really want my opinion, I would actually blame myself. Not those who never decided to exist at all. I/God made the original decision... I'm not even going to start with the fact that I knew what would have happened.

You know that if you decide eventually to have children that those children will grow up to make their own choices. You are well aware that they may and probably will make the wrong choices from time to time. Is this a reason not to have children at all?

Would you blame yourself for their choices?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Here comes the problem, since I can't really discuss this. I don't believe in this transcendental soul with free will/choice. So I believe that all love is actually programmed. Even if there is free will, for me, that doesn't excuse an infinitely powerful being for its finite actions.

If you believe there is no free choice, and therefore that emotions like love are programmed, then you have to surrender all freedom of thought whatsoever.

If you do not have freedom of thought, your entire philosophy on this forum falls apart (as you are simply programmed to hold that philosophy). Do you really believe we do not have free will?

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If I try and adopt such a world view for a second... I can't change the person, but I can save him by revealing myself (unambiguously). If belief in Jesus is what saves people from hell, then why doesn't he reveal himself. This is one of the most common questions, but I never got (or comprehended) the answer. If he loves us so much that he suffered on the cross, then he should also love us enough to suffer some more and send all those destined for hell to heaven.

God will reveal Himself when you seek Him with all your heart. You have been told He loves you unconditionally and that is all the revelation you need. The next move is yours.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Yes, I know. We can all make choices and become Christian. But answer this. If I came to you with a belief system, basically identical to yours, but different. If I told you that you won't get to heaven because you choose hell. How would you feel? You wouldn't care, you already have your own thing going on and you wouldn't act against your faith. That's the point where you or I are unable to listen/make choices who to listen to. The fact that you or I wouldn't act against our beliefs is what makes us incapable of "choice". And thus shouldn't be judged.

I acted against my faith and considered myself agnostic for a couple years. I then acted against that faith and am now a devoted follower of Christ.

People act against their faith every day. We are very capable of choice.


Seek God, truly. It will change your life.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

God is responsible for creating the universe and for granting us free will. Given that we have free will, we are responsible for using it as we see fit.

And yet it was not me who chose to exist and take the responsibility. Somebody else has taken their responsibilities and dropped them onto me... at least from this religious perspective. If I'm to be judged by every choice I make, then it should be noted that every choice I made is a result of a single choice - God's choice to create me.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

You are well aware that they may and probably will make the wrong choices from time to time. Is this a reason not to have children at all?

If their choices mean that they will go to a hell for an eternity, then it's definitely a reason not to have children at all. As I said. Some Christian who believes in a hell is doing what, as I see it, God has done. Taken the responsibility for some action then dumped it onto the child. So suddenly it's their child's fault if he gets to hell... how illogical. I don't see a reason to create more potential burn victims.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

If you believe there is no free choice, and therefore that emotions like love are programmed, then you have to surrender all freedom of thought whatsoever.

If you do not have freedom of thought, your entire philosophy on this forum falls apart (as you are simply programmed to hold that philosophy). Do you really believe we do not have free will?

I don't really understand what freedom of thought means here. If you're saying that without this transcendental free will I cannot form my thoughts, then I say that's incorrect, since simple causality can result in thought. If a soulless monkey can have complex thoughts, then so can a human.

Saying that my argument falls appart because I actually have an argument is therefore invalid, since thoughts haven't been corelated to souls with free will, neither have souls been proven for that fact. If I am programmed to have an idea, an idea doesn't disappear if a soul wasn't the one to make it, why would it?
Free will can just be an illusion. I don't see how it would hold any meaning in the objective universe. I'm not saying that I hold absolute knowledge... but one way or the other, I am being determined. If things don't just pop into existence out of nothing, then I don't see why thoughts are exempt from this.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

God will reveal Himself when you seek Him with all your heart. You have been told He loves you unconditionally and that is all the revelation you need. The next move is yours.

Apparently that's not all I need. What I need is tangible proof, from which I can either conclude that I'm hallucinating (which only supports my point that it's immoral to punish me for something I have no control over), or that Jesus is real. Since "revalations" surprisingly happen for every form of religion, it's safe to conclude that dieties are in the eye of the beholder, so no matter how much time I waste praying, Jesus won't exist untill he exists for me. Which won't happen since you say that the only way to see him is to believe in him.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

I acted against my faith and considered myself agnostic for a couple years. I then acted against that faith and am now a devoted follower of Christ.

People act against their faith every day. We are very capable of choice.

Prove this by making a choice not to be Christian this very moment. I'll take a big guess that you didn't do it.

We are very incapable of choice.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

If you were a perfect being, perhaps the most humble decision you could make would be to create others to enjoy your presence.

Yet those you created to enjoy your benevolence have abused their freedom to create anti-benevolence.

I guess they must have abused their freedom, serves them right!


By the way, choice as your trying to make it look like doesn't really exist. We are made of matter, we obey the same laws of physics it does, our behaviour is deterministic.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

And yet it was not me who chose to exist and take the responsibility. Somebody else has taken their responsibilities and dropped them onto me... at least from this religious perspective. If I'm to be judged by every choice I make, then it should be noted that every choice I made is a result of a single choice - God's choice to create me.

And every choice you make is a result of your parents' choice. It does not follow that your parents are responsible for your choices. Neither does it follow that God is responsible for our choices.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If their choices mean that they will go to a hell for an eternity, then it's definitely a reason not to have children at all. As I said. Some Christian who believes in a hell is doing what, as I see it, God has done. Taken the responsibility for some action then dumped it onto the child. So suddenly it's their child's fault if he gets to hell... how illogical. I don't see a reason to create more potential burn victims.

The nature of God and the way He experiences time (or the lack thereof) is really what points toward an answer.

God, being timeless, would not "see something happening in the future (for instance, somebody choosing a godless path)," because there is no "future" to a timeless being. There is no moment when God made a "choice" to create humans at all. God sees all points of all time simultaneously.

We exist for one reason: because God loves us. This has always been the truth and it did not become a reality at any specific point in time. God "created" (and I quote 'created' because it is a temporal word) us because of his love and in the midst of all of that some people accepted His love while others rejected it.

You need to look at it from a timeless perspective. It's not that God "foresaw" (another temporal verb) our fate; God exists. We exist. Some choose to love God. Others do not. However, God loves all.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

I don't really understand what freedom of thought means here. If you're saying that without this transcendental free will I cannot form my thoughts, then I say that's incorrect, since simple causality can result in thought. If a soulless monkey can have complex thoughts, then so can a human.

Saying that my argument falls appart because I actually have an argument is therefore invalid, since thoughts haven't been corelated to souls with free will, neither have souls been proven for that fact. If I am programmed to have an idea, an idea doesn't disappear if a soul wasn't the one to make it, why would it?

I said your argument falls apart because what you said, and I quote, was "I believe that all love is actually programmed. Even if there is free will...", implying that you did not believe in free will.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Free will can just be an illusion. I don't see how it would hold any meaning in the objective universe. I'm not saying that I hold absolute knowledge... but one way or the other, I am being determined. If things don't just pop into existence out of nothing, then I don't see why thoughts are exempt from this.

How is it that free will and determinism can coexist?

Perhaps the universe is deterministic because all time has, in some sense, already happened, or rather it is happening simultaneously in the core of its Creator.

And perhaps we still have freedom to choose because our Creator has granted us that choice.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Apparently that's not all I need. What I need is tangible proof, from which I can either conclude that I'm hallucinating (which only supports my point that it's immoral to punish me for something I have no control over), or that Jesus is real. Since "revalations" surprisingly happen for every form of religion, it's safe to conclude that dieties are in the eye of the beholder, so no matter how much time I waste praying, Jesus won't exist untill he exists for me. Which won't happen since you say that the only way to see him is to believe in him.

Are you agnostic? If proof is what you seek I imagine you are not an atheist.

I have proof that God exists. I am alive.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Prove this by making a choice not to be Christian this very moment. I'll take a big guess that you didn't do it.

We are very incapable of choice.

This is a slightly silly reason to reject belief because of lack of proof.

I give you my word that I was agnostic in college. If you reject that, bummer.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I guess they must have abused their freedom, serves them right!

The quote that you used was a reference to the way that God suffers and is irrelevant to the graphic.

Jesus came to help the poor.

Churches help those types of people every day.

Jesus calls on us to give all that we can to the poor, so that we may remedy issues like those in the graphic you have used.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

Jesus came to help the poor.

Churches help those types of people every day.

Jesus calls on us to give all that we can to the poor, so that we may remedy issues like those in the graphic you have used.

Bull shit Jesus came to help the poor. They came to make them suffer and exploit their vulnerability. It is the religious injection in these war torn worlds that makes me literally want to euthanize the people that are "being helped" and then riddle the manipulating people with bullets.

"Jesus" has done nothing but make the problems worse in those areas. Saying otherwise is simply ignorant and wrong.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Bull shit Jesus came to help the poor. They came to make them suffer and exploit their vulnerability. It is the religious injection in these war torn worlds that makes me literally want to euthanize the people that are "being helped" and then riddle the manipulating people with bullets.

"Jesus" has done nothing but make the problems worse in those areas. Saying otherwise is simply ignorant and wrong.

~

You are taking this documentary and generalizing the entire Christian population.

You can research the positive things churches have done (perhaps just check out your local church and ask?), or you can keep finding ways to generalize Christians.

If a Christian strapped a bomb to his chest, he does not speak for the group as a whole, nor does he at all speak for Christ.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

You are taking this documentary and generalizing the entire Christian population.

You can research the positive things churches have done (perhaps just check out your local church and ask?), or you can keep finding ways to generalize Christians.

If a Christian strapped a bomb to his chest, he does not speak for the group as a whole, nor does he at all speak for Christ.

I am generalizing that I am saying that Christians have done nothing for the eastern world but deprive it?

Yes, I am. Prove me wrong. Missionaries go over and thrive on their impoverished environment then proclaim Jesus.

I encourage you to prove me wrong. You will pardon me when I highly doubt you will.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am generalizing that I am saying that Christians have done nothing for the eastern world but deprive it?

Yes, I am. Prove me wrong. Missionaries go over and thrive on their impoverished environment then proclaim Jesus.

I encourage you to prove me wrong. You will pardon me when I highly doubt you will.

~

This is really a silly thing to argue. It isn't about who is right or wrong; it's about what's really happening.

There are those that proclaim Christianity and use it poorly.

There are those that proclaim Christianity and use it wisely.

I attend a church that establishes transitional households for children in Ethiopia so they are not orphans when they turn 16. They develop water wells for those in the eastern region of the world.

Visit some churches--ask them how they use their money. Let me know what you find out.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

The quote that you used was a reference to the way that God suffers and is irrelevant to the graphic.

Jesus came to help the poor.

Churches help those types of people every day.

No, it was also about people suffering. You said people are at fault for their suffering.

Bad things happen to good people, and many times people are directly born into misery. And the supposed omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god allows it.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

No, it was also about people suffering. You said people are at fault for their suffering.

Bad things happen to good people, and many times people are directly born into misery. And the supposed omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god allows it.

Again, the quote was in reference to God's suffering. I am sorry if you believe otherwise.

All of us suffer. God suffers too. But God calls on us to act.

"By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?"
I John 3:16-17

God loves people through people. The point is for us to act for the poor, rather than using them as an excuse to disprove God.

... then god isn't omnipotent?

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

And every choice you make is a result of your parents' choice. It does not follow that your parents are responsible for your choices. Neither does it follow that God is responsible for our choices.

So why is everybody so worked up about Hitler? Did he ever do anything wrong? This argument falls down if he directly harmed somebody, but if not, then he was just a crazy guy spewing words. His followers are the ones who killed and tortured. What about brainwashing? Or indoctrination? I don't understand this, since nobody has ever described to me how a soul works. The fact is that by changing somebodies brain we change their "soul", which is just a fancy word for thought patterns. If you can see free will, other than the illusory kind, in such examples of determinism, then I'll never understand these religious concepts.

The only free will you can experience is your own, from which stems our existential responsibility for our actions. There are no souls which change the universe by making new causal links through the brain every time they make a decision. There could be, but there is no reason to think so in the 21. century. This subjective view of reality makes sense if you are a farmer 2000 years ago, but not now when we're learning more and more about the universe with the use of the scientific method.

As I said, I don't claim absolute knowledge. I can only integrate together what I know and deduce what I can. Yes, I am agnostic, I don't know anything beside that whatever I am supposed to be is experiencing something.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

The nature of God and the way He experiences time (or the lack thereof) is really what points toward an answer.

God, being timeless, would not "see something happening in the future (for instance, somebody choosing a godless path)," because there is no "future" to a timeless being. There is no moment when God made a "choice" to create humans at all. God sees all points of all time simultaneously.

It's funny how he is infinite and finite only depending on the situation when a certain characteristic is needed. Why does his timelessness suddenly diminish his omnipotence?

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

We exist for one reason: because God loves us. This has always been the truth and it did not become a reality at any specific point in time. God "created" (and I quote 'created' because it is a temporal word) us because of his love and in the midst of all of that some people accepted His love while others rejected it.

You need to look at it from a timeless perspective. It's not that God "foresaw" (another temporal verb) our fate; God exists. We exist. Some choose to love God. Others do not. However, God loves all.

If you show me something I can reject it. If you show me nothing, there is nothing to reject. God doesn't exist, I can't reject him. You project your beliefs onto me by making me choose to believe this God of yours. There is no reason to prefer your god over Odin. You believe in the objectively "incriminating" nature of choice, that you have chosen correctly and now you're trying to push me into a corner by making me accept the reality of choice. As I've said a bunch of times, no matter what I choose it's all deterministic. If true, by your God's decision.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

How is it that free will and determinism can coexist?

Perhaps the universe is deterministic because all time has, in some sense, already happened, or rather it is happening simultaneously in the core of its Creator.

And perhaps we still have freedom to choose because our Creator has granted us that choice.

The simple fact that free will doesn't exist the way people want it to exist, but is, as I said, an illusion. Why do you insist on the notion of free will?
Give me a thought experiment which proves this non-deterministic, transcendental free will, which acts independently of the physical laws.

If you believe in your example of a deterministic universe then you also support the fact that God is inherently unjust/immoral. Creating someone bound for hell doesn't equal just or good. I don't have a problem if God just doesn't give a shit and burns some people for an eternity just because he wants to. The problem I have is when God supposedly does that, but loves the people he's burning.

When you added the "freedom to choose" to that idea, you kind of made my point. The free will, what we experience subjectively exists, but is inherently, objectively determined. If you were christian and believed this you could call yourself a Calvinist. Your determined reality is revealed to you through your subjective, free choices and thoughts... but this doesn't change it's true objective nature and it shouldn't be forgotten when any "hell/heaven" sentences are made.

What "you" are demanding of me is to forget what I know about reality and only focus on the subjective part. If God only focuses on the subjective part (the making of "free choices") and doesn't care if the reason for my thoughts is a tumor, then I truly am F**ed. See you in hell then.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

Are you agnostic? If proof is what you seek I imagine you are not an atheist.

I have proof that God exists. I am alive.

Yes I am agnostic, but at the same time I lack a belief in gods, which makes me atheist for all practical reasons.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

This is a slightly silly reason to reject belief because of lack of proof.

I give you my word that I was agnostic in college. If you reject that, bummer.

No it's not a silly reason. If it was so silly you'd use up that sentence to describe why this transcendental free will can't brake free of it's determined state (since this is what it apparently does all the time), which is "I am a christian, I believe in God". It's just another level on which one is unable to make real free choices.

I didn't say I don't believe you were agnostic in college.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

This is really a silly thing to argue. It isn't about who is right or wrong; it's about what's really happening.

There are those that proclaim Christianity and use it poorly.

There are those that proclaim Christianity and use it wisely.

We can easily argue who is right and wrong over economical injections into other countries and religion has done nothing but ruin it. That is easily inarguable because of the reasoning used for the violence in the first place.

However, this is arguable, and I do not really encourage you to reply as it does digress. Just let that irrelevancy rest for now.

The original point was that there are dying countries and God does nothing about it. If he is loving and good, then why does he allow it? Is it our responsibility to make up for Gods lack of good in humans by compensating for humans strife?

I attend a church that establishes transitional households for children in Ethiopia so they are not orphans when they turn 16. They develop water wells for those in the eastern region of the world.

Of course, I see many missionaries claim that they are helping out the worlds by going over and preaching and painting an old bus.

Whatever makes you feel good, but this is completely insignificant to the macro-economy of the country. This is like saying you are going to cure a headache by rubbing your toe.

Visit some churches--ask them how they use their money. Let me know what you find out.

I have. You want to know what most churches spend money on?

+ Church decorations (ie. windows, chairs, pedestals, etc.)
+ Supplies (ie. cleaning, crafts, food)
+ Computers
+ Security features
+ Advertising (ie. posters, pot-lucks, camps)

Now imagine if all these churches actually rallied their money together to really make a difference in these countries. Building a church in their country does absolutely nothing for their status as a crap country. If you're impoverished and I come to your house and throw a bible to your lap, what are you going to say? Especially under the guise that I am "helping" you.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I have. You want to know what most churches spend money on?

+ Church decorations (ie. windows, chairs, pedestals, etc.)
+ Supplies (ie. cleaning, crafts, food)
+ Computers
+ Security features
+ Advertising (ie. posters, pot-lucks, camps)

Now imagine if all these churches actually rallied their money together to really make a difference in these countries. Building a church in their country does absolutely nothing for their status as a crap country. If you're impoverished and I come to your house and throw a bible to your lap, what are you going to say? Especially under the guise that I am "helping" you.

~

I hate the hypocrasy of this also.

There is a Lutheran church a mile from our house on a corner. It has one of those big assed electronic LCD signs - color not monochrome. It is really two signs together at 90o because of the corner - Must have cost thousand$$$.

When we moved into our house they put a loaf of bread on our door step with an invite to join them plus some bread related bibble verse. Now we live in a very wealthy subdivision. The next town to us has some real poverty issues. I couldnt help wondering why the "christians" wernt giving the bread to the poor who could use it rather than us. A note would have sufficed surely? Stupid!

They added a school to the church recently. We call it the xtian factory. Obviously its a private fee paying school.

Someones making a buck or two and living nicely. And ensuring the revenue stream will be running in the future.

And let us not forget that the roman catholic church is richer than several 3rd world countries put together.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

... then god isn't omnipotent?

He is. He does not see events happening in the future because there is no "future" to a timeless being. Rather, he sees all events that have happened, are happening and will happen in one moment. He is aware of all events simultaneously. They are not "going to happen." They are happening. All of them at once.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

So why is everybody so worked up about Hitler? Did he ever do anything wrong? This argument falls down if he directly harmed somebody, but if not, then he was just a crazy guy spewing words. His followers are the ones who killed and tortured. What about brainwashing? Or indoctrination? I don't understand this, since nobody has ever described to me how a soul works. The fact is that by changing somebodies brain we change their "soul", which is just a fancy word for thought patterns. If you can see free will, other than the illusory kind, in such examples of determinism, then I'll never understand these religious concepts.

The Nazis were responsible for their decisions. Hitler was responsible for his own decisions. Hitler condoned violent behavior, and his advance of such behaviors makes him almost entirely responsible for the Holocaust.

Look at it this way. In the classroom, I can condone violent and aggressive behavior, and while my students would still be responsible for their actions, I would certainly hold much of the responsibility in this case.

But if I condone positive behavior, set examples and fully encourage my students to live out those valuable traits, then they still are responsible for their own actions, and I may in fact hold responsibility as well.

Yet when a student is humble, they find themselves not with pride in themselves, but with praise for the teacher who has taught them what they know. They give thanks to the teacher and keep none for themselves as they recognize it is their obligation as a student citizen.

So which behaviors does God condone? God is benevolent beyond comprehension.

With regard to brainwashing, I believe you are asking how there can be free will in such a case?

I suppose we use our knowledge to make our free choices. For instance, I know there's going to be traffic on the highway at rush hour so I will decide to avoid it. That is my choice based on the knowledge I have.

If somebody is brainwashed, or severely misled perhaps, then they are using their distorted knowledge to make free choices. So the choices are still "free" in the given sense of the word, but they are based on a contorted view of the world.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

The only free will you can experience is your own, from which stems our existential responsibility for our actions. There are no souls which change the universe by making new causal links through the brain every time they make a decision. There could be, but there is no reason to think so in the 21. century. This subjective view of reality makes sense if you are a farmer 2000 years ago, but not now when we're learning more and more about the universe with the use of the scientific method.

I sense we agree that there is a subjective and objective quality to the free will we experience, but we disagree in the phenomenon that allows it to happen. Hence this discussion.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

It's funny how he is infinite and finite only depending on the situation when a certain characteristic is needed. Why does his timelessness suddenly diminish his omnipotence?

I believe I addressed this above.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If you show me something I can reject it. If you show me nothing, there is nothing to reject. God doesn't exist, I can't reject him. You project your beliefs onto me by making me choose to believe this God of yours. There is no reason to prefer your god over Odin. You believe in the objectively "incriminating" nature of choice, that you have chosen correctly and now you're trying to push me into a corner by making me accept the reality of choice. As I've said a bunch of times, no matter what I choose it's all deterministic. If true, by your God's decision.

I am presenting my views as you are presenting yours. This is the nature of debate.

The quote you addressed here was simply to get you to change your frame of reference. You told me that God "knew it was going to happen," as if there was some sort of future in God's path. But a timeless being doesn't have a "future" in any sense. All time occurs simultaneously.

So it is not that God "knew it was going to happen." Rather, God is aware that it is happening.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

The simple fact that free will doesn't exist the way people want it to exist, but is, as I said, an illusion. Why do you insist on the notion of free will?
Give me a thought experiment which proves this non-deterministic, transcendental free will, which acts independently of the physical laws.

If you believe in your example of a deterministic universe then you also support the fact that God is inherently unjust/immoral. Creating someone bound for hell doesn't equal just or good. I don't have a problem if God just doesn't give a shit and burns some people for an eternity just because he wants to. The problem I have is when God supposedly does that, but loves the people he's burning.

When you added the "freedom to choose" to that idea, you kind of made my point. The free will, what we experience subjectively exists, but is inherently, objectively determined. If you were christian and believed this you could call yourself a Calvinist. Your determined reality is revealed to you through your subjective, free choices and thoughts... but this doesn't change it's true objective nature and it shouldn't be forgotten when any "hell/heaven" sentences are made.

What "you" are demanding of me is to forget what I know about reality and only focus on the subjective part. If God only focuses on the subjective part (the making of "free choices") and doesn't care if the reason for my thoughts is a tumor, then I truly am F**ed. See you in hell then.

Your analysis of free will in the 3rd paragraph seems to fit my own.

I have repeated the point that God does not condone people to hell; people make choices and bring themselves down whatever path they choose.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

No it's not a silly reason. If it was so silly you'd use up that sentence to describe why this transcendental free will can't brake free of it's determined state (since this is what it apparently does all the time), which is "I am a christian, I believe in God". It's just another level on which one is unable to make real free choices.

Let me repeat this--we make free choices based on our knowledge.

I can choose to believe that this chair won't support me when I sit down, but it would be rather moronic.

Originally Posted by O'nus

We can easily argue who is right and wrong over economical injections into other countries and religion has done nothing but ruin it. That is easily inarguable because of the reasoning used for the violence in the first place.

However, this is arguable, and I do not really encourage you to reply as it does digress. Just let that irrelevancy rest for now.

The original point was that there are dying countries and God does nothing about it. If he is loving and good, then why does he allow it? Is it our responsibility to make up for Gods lack of good in humans by compensating for humans strife?

As I said, God calls on us to act. Plenty of people are acting right now. Plenty of churches. All over the world. We are here to do God's work.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Of course, I see many missionaries claim that they are helping out the worlds by going over and preaching and painting an old bus.

Whatever makes you feel good, but this is completely insignificant to the macro-economy of the country. This is like saying you are going to cure a headache by rubbing your toe.

Missionaries do much more than painting.

As far as curing a headache by rubbing a toe, I couldn't agree more that we can't cure the headache.

But we can do something. We can help some people. We can make some difference. And the more people that realize this, the bigger difference we could make.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I have. You want to know what most churches spend money on?

+ Church decorations (ie. windows, chairs, pedestals, etc.)
+ Supplies (ie. cleaning, crafts, food)
+ Computers
+ Security features
+ Advertising (ie. posters, pot-lucks, camps)

Now imagine if all these churches actually rallied their money together to really make a difference in these countries. Building a church in their country does absolutely nothing for their status as a crap country. If you're impoverished and I come to your house and throw a bible to your lap, what are you going to say? Especially under the guise that I am "helping" you.

~

The church I attend has a display screen that has not been working since May.

Why?

Because they are putting their money elsewhere--toward the orphans, the hungry, the sick.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

I hate the hypocrasy of this also.

There is a Lutheran church a mile from our house on a corner. It has one of those big assed electronic LCD signs - color not monochrome. It is really two signs together at 90o because of the corner - Must have cost thousand$$$.

When we moved into our house they put a loaf of bread on our door step with an invite to join them plus some bread related bibble verse. Now we live in a very wealthy subdivision. The next town to us has some real poverty issues. I couldnt help wondering why the "christians" wernt giving the bread to the poor who could use it rather than us. A note would have sufficed surely? Stupid!

They added a school to the church recently. We call it the xtian factory. Obviously its a private fee paying school.

Someones making a buck or two and living nicely. And ensuring the revenue stream will be running in the future.

And let us not forget that the roman catholic church is richer than several 3rd world countries put together.

Generalizing is not necessarily the route to take.

As an occultist/mystic I find this entire debate highly amusing. Nothing quite like seeing the same old arguments from both sides.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

Missionaries do much more than painting.

Oh? Citations? It is one thing to simply say you are doing something and another to really justify it.

As far as curing a headache by rubbing a toe, I couldn't agree more that we can't cure the headache.

...

Don't be coy, you know my point.

But we can do something. We can help some people. We can make some difference. And the more people that realize this, the bigger difference we could make.

How do you propose the churches do this again..?

The church I attend has a display screen that has not been working since May.

Why?

Because they are putting their money elsewhere--toward the orphans, the hungry, the sick.

Generalizing is not necessarily the route to take.

You are not really providing any reason not to "generalize". You know, just because you say something like "ad hominem" or another fallacy, does not mean you are right.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh? Citations? It is one thing to simply say you are doing something and another to really justify it.

If one says that all apples are red, another only has to reveal a green apple to dismantle the generalization.

I have already given you specific examples of good deeds from the church.

My church helped build an orphanage in Chihuahua, Mexico. Housing orphans in a unit with working plumbing and electricity is a pretty fantastic undertaking.


...

Originally Posted by O'nus

Don't be coy, you know my point.

Your point was that we cannot solve all of the world's problems, and you are right.

Hospitals cannot save everybody's lives. But they can save some. Just because others are destined to die does not mean we should stop providing health care.

Originally Posted by O'nus

How do you propose the churches do this again..?

See above example.

Food drives, clothing drives, blood drives. You don't even need a church for an event like this. But they make a difference to somebody.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You are not really providing any reason not to "generalize". You know, just because you say something like "ad hominem" or another fallacy, does not mean you are right.

~

I have given you a green apple.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

If somebody is brainwashed, or severely misled perhaps, then they are using their distorted knowledge to make free choices. So the choices are still "free" in the given sense of the word, but they are based on a contorted view of the world.


I have repeated the point that God does not condone people to hell; people make choices and bring themselves down whatever path they choose.
Let me repeat this--we make free choices based on our knowledge. ...

I don't have a problem with the idea that our choices are judged. But as I said, they are all objectively determined. That's why I want to know how God can be just or good after knowing this and being the one who started it all. Yes, the choices send us to hell, fine. But how does a good God, being omnipotent, allow this. I'll also repeat this for the sake of its importance - yes we make free choices, but for an objective observer they are just a result of a complex chemical reaction. Even if your idea of reality includes a special relationship between a soul and the universe, you couldn't really deny the mounds of proof which show how brainwashing, brain damage etc. changes ones personality (and in this discussion, the soul, or more importantly the souls "final resting place").

I'm sorry if you already answered this, but if you did, I'm not getting it.

Originally Posted by ninja pirate

I can choose to believe that this chair won't support me when I sit down, but it would be rather moronic.

Imagining or saying you believe that you can fly isn't belief. Belief is when you jump of a cliff without hesitation for the sake of flying like superman.

Originally Posted by TheUnknownKadath

As an occultist/mystic I find this entire debate highly amusing. Nothing quite like seeing the same old arguments from both sides.

And yet they are somehow better in quality than the "no arguments" from your side.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

And yet they are somehow better in quality than the "no arguments" from your side.

Indeed, bad show TheunknownKadath.

Seeing as the goal of the occultist is to complete the Great Work and slay their ego, if oft amuses me that all too frequently the result is quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

Indeed, bad show TheunknownKadath.

Seeing as the goal of the occultist is to complete the Great Work and slay their ego, if oft amuses me that all too frequently the result is quite the opposite.

I resent that.




I've never hidden the fact that I'm a raging egotist.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

And yet they are somehow better in quality than the "no arguments" from your side.

I'm afraid you've assumed I'm on the wrong side of this argument. But just for my own amusement I'll take a third stance.

There are three possibilities for the future of Mankind:

(1) the human species will go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage

(2) any posthuman civilization is very unlikely to run a large number of simulations of their evolutionary history. (Or unable to.)

(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

Statistically the odds of us being in the (1) "true" universe is lower then that of us being in a computer simulation.

And if we're in a simulation then the question of Gods existence becomes moot, since we're experiencing everything second hand.