Was it free will or pre-planned?

Um...because he's not.

First off the evil talked about in the verse is conflict. War to be specific.

From our perspective Jospeh being sold into slavery was evil but from God's perspective it was all part of the good plan. Joseph recognized that fact and even explained it to his brothers.

So no, he's not evil. He allows and works through it. Not with it.

Ben

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A good plan, huh? Then why don't you admit/accept that the fall of Adam and Eve was all part of the good plan? Why do you feel bad to be a sinner? Isn't sin part of this good plan, too?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was part of the plan. Just because God gave us the ability to sin doesn't make it okay to sin.

Ben

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If we don't sin, isn't that will break God's good plan apart? What do Jesus do if nobody is a sinner?

God already knew the fall of Adam and Eve. If they didn't sin, wasn't that would make God look stupid because He made a false prediction?

 

Part of the plan ....

So is it part of God's plan that we should sin and create separation so that we require obedience to a savior in order to earn "redemption" from the failure of persons generations ago?

That is:

* God knew Adam and Eve would fall, for he created the conditions and, knowing the result, chose that outcome. This is part of God's plan.

* As a result of Adam and Eve's fall, all of humanity is apparently born into a separation from God. As we have noted, this is part of God's plan.

* Thus, in order to overcome that separation, we are enslaved to a life of servitude and faith, apparently never aspiring to discover whether what we believe of the ineffable thing we call God is real or proper.

* Therefore, people of faith have sacrificed their liberty in order to earn a reward that God offers because he set it up that we should need to earn that reward.

* This is why it seems a racket: However, KalvinB's refusal of free-will faith reduces the racket to mere blackmail. We must conduct ourselves "honestly" so that we can earn our place in a dishonest scheme.

Yeah, I'd say God is evil. But for God to be all he's cracked up to be, he must necessarily have an evil facet.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

God has demonstrated his existance quite openly several times even in the NT. Knowing he exists is a moot point in the scheme of things. The Jews leaving egypt knew full well God existed. Then they got into the wilderness and starting bitching and decided to build a golden calf that would treat them better.

If God did show himself would you accept Him? Cause from your posts you don't seem to like what he does.

You're a slave whether or not God exists.

We don't earn salvation.

How does keeping the law make you a slave?

Ben

 

I have plenty of books that show other gods had demonstrated their existence very openly many many times. So what? I don't see them doing demo now.

I really wish he does. Maybe a live interview with CNN news reporter is good enough to convince everybody. But then you will say God has no obligation to show himself, which in terms, will render your question to pointless.

 

In certain constructions of the word, yes, we are slaves whether or not God exists. If one is a slave to a natural force, one has no need to complain; gravity doesn't discriminate, and I don't fault it because I can't fly without fake wings.

However, religions consistently assign their gods personalities, and remove them from the blindness of indiscriminate nature. If we are slaves to such a God, then it is that God who chooses to remand us to such bondage. Considering that God designed the system such that such enslavement was the only method of closing the gap God willed 'twixt Himself and humanity, I'd say such an answer diminishes any goodness of God. It's like the crime boss Uncle Whatsit who "takes care of his people" in return for absolute obedience. His "love" only extends to their compliance.

I'll take a swing at this, too ...

If God showed himself, I would ask him what was up with the bad instruction, the pointless rules, and the seeming restriction of the religious function to a marketplace name-recognition scheme.

If God chose to answer me with a reason, it might be enough to compel me to forgive His holy behind.

If God chose to strike me down for such insolence, well, the issue becomes moot for me, and the people get to see what their petty God is actually made of.

I think the first question I'd ask, though, would be whether God intended to create a condition whereby His human creations defied the natural order by hoping for the death of the species instead of its perpetuity. After all, this Christian hope for apocalypse runs directly counter to the rest of life, which attempts to secure itself in the Universe.

This is a faith statement. It can be demonstrated by pointing to the appropriate biblical passages, but those passages must stand on the classic Bible a priori:

* (Assertion) is true.
Why?
* Because it says so in the Bible.
Why does that make it true?
* Because the Bible is the Word of God.
How do you know the Bible is the Word of God?
* Because the Bible tells me so.

And that's why God wrote a rule about graven images, right? After all, God is a jealous God (of whom can God be envious?)

Hmm ... perhaps something we're overlooking here is why the calf was built. Because the calf would treat them better is assumptive, it seems. Could it not have been that the Hebrew philosophers were of the "God is One/All" mode at the time? Would a jealous God capable of lying feel any inclination when dicating His Word to represent those things he disapproves of accurately? There's no reason He should.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How do any of you know god exists in the first place? Did you sit down and talk with him. Or do you merely trust the word of people thousands of year dead? Words that have probably been changed and corrupted throughout the centuries to suit the needs of current politics?

 

Thank you Jay for bringing this discussion to a new topic. Next time hit "New Thread" instead of "New Post." It's a good question, just not relative to this thread.

If you want to debate the Christian God, you have to debate it from the perspective that everything in the Bible is true. Doesn't matter if it is. Just pretend. I can't very well debate evolution from the perspective of Creationism. Otherwise it's just "I'm right because you're wrong." You have to show someone they're wrong from the confines of their own box. I think that thread is already in progress.

"It's like the crime boss Uncle Whatsit who "takes care of his people" in return for absolute obedience. His "love" only extends to their compliance."

No one is absolutly obedient. God may demand it but he's not stupid. He certainly doesn't expect it. Where sin abounds grace abounds more. His love extends past our sinfulness. That's pretty much the whole point of the gospel. God loves you despite your sin. All He wants you to do is recognize you suck and say "hey, God I suck." And he'll say "yeah, I've been watchin but that's okay. I forgive you."

The gospel from the OT to the NT hasn't changed a bit. If all you do is look at the law then yes, God is the most demanding diety out there expecting absolute perfection which no one can deliver. If you study the gospel you see that God himself supplies the perfection for you. We're clothed in HIS righteousness.

The only reason God has a human personality described in the Bible is because what else would we understand? The Bible uses symbolism a great deal to try to convey to us something that we couldn't understand otherwise.

Ben

 

*Originally posted by tiassa
And yet the LORD denies those for the evil He creates ... hmm*

What are you talking about?
You live a life of evil.

*Originally posted by daktaklakpak
Then why don't you just admit/accept that your God is also evil?*

It doesn't follow.
You write nonsense, yet you aren't nonsense.

*If they didn't sin, wasn't that would make God look stupid because He made a false prediction?*

They did sin, so God made a true prediction.

*Originally posted by tiassa
whether what we believe of the ineffable thing we call God is real or proper. *

I'm wondering if the effable thing we call tiassa is real.

*Therefore, people of faith have sacrificed their liberty in order to earn a reward that God offers because he set it up that we should need to earn that reward. *

Every Christian has tried both options.
Non-Christians have only tried one.
We're the ones with liberty.
You're the one that has only one way to think.

*Originally posted by daktaklakpak
I have plenty of books that show other gods had demonstrated their existence very openly many many times.*

Those would be the minor gods, the losers in the big picture.

*Originally posted by tiassa
If God showed himself, I would ask him what was up with the bad instruction, the pointless rules, and the seeming restriction of the religious function to a marketplace name-recognition scheme.*

He'd tell you it was your twisted thinking.

*After all, this Christian hope for apocalypse*

"Apocalypse" means "revelation."

*Originally posted by Jay Renalsds
Did you sit down and talk with him.*

Yes
That's how people know he's here.

 

so you tony1 personally talked to god thats quite interesting, considering everyone who in history has, is now considered schizophernic, DID SOMEONE FORGET THEIR MEDICATION????

 

*Originally posted by some_guy01
considering everyone who in history has, is now considered schizophernic,*

You mean, like, by Freud, the cocaine addict?

*DID SOMEONE FORGET THEIR MEDICATION???? *

I don't know.
What meds schedule are you on?

 

How ... well, expected ....

Thank you, Tony1, desperate demonization of your opponent is about what we've come to expect from Christians; such a device only dominates their history on Earth.

Another desperate dodge! Am I sensing a trend here?

Definitely a trend--Tony1 is becoming (becoming?!) desperate in his failed campaign.

At which revelation, the seas shall boil and the heavens burn away? It's why we have euphemisms for death: kicked the bucket, cashed in, went to a better place, gone home to God ....

And here we see that desperate construction of windmills for tilting. Every Christian? Right. Every non-Christian? Right.

How desperate a generalization can you give? Your claim of liberty is much like the Krishna Consciousness movement's claim that a woman is only truly free when bound to her husband's authority. You have desperately exscinded the former and transcended Christians who have left that tyranny behind for liberty, as well as desperately asserted the psychology of all Christians in what is a doubtful generalization at best.

Tony1, if you're going to waste our time with your hatred, at least make it coherent and legitimate. Stop inventing things to hate and just deal with life. I don't get it, though: for all my differences with the Christian God, I don't hate Him as much as you seem to. Why would you ever portray your God to be a cruel idiot? Ah, the provocateur idea, again. But we already know you're not ... you'd choose a tack that didn't leave the infidels laughing at the caricature you've created of the spectre that threatens the world.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I've put some thought into this and have decided that in this time, if someone came to you telling you that god had spoken these words to him and he had wrote them down, and that this was the newest and completely uncorrupted version of the bible, that that person would go to the asylum. What would happen to a "prophet" in modern times? I think the answer is clear they would go to the nut house.

 

*Originally posted by tiassa
desperate demonization of your opponent*

Opponent?
Here I was thinking of you as a fellow debater.

*Another desperate dodge! Am I sensing a trend here?*

You brought up the issue of effability.

*At which revelation, the seas shall boil and the heavens burn away?*

Why yes.

*Every Christian?*

Right.
You can't be born Christian.

*Every non-Christian?*

Right.
The common thread behind every extian atheist whose story I am familiar with is the absence of a love for the truth although they do proclaim such a thing.

*You have desperately exscinded the former and transcended Christians who have left that tyranny behind for liberty, as well as desperately asserted the psychology of all Christians in what is a doubtful generalization at best.*

This desperation kick you're on is a new thing.
Are you now feeling desperate as well as fearful?

*Originally posted by Jay Renalsds
What would happen to a "prophet" in modern times? I think the answer is clear they would go to the nut house.*

The problem is that the people making the decisions about things like that are trained by a cocaine addict (Freud).
They've got enough problems just trying to keep from committing suicide to be able to think about things like that.

I was reading over a list of some big names of psychology just lately and around two-thirds of them were suicides.
I knew the suicide rate among psychistrists and psychologists is sky-high, but it still caught me by surprise.

 

Reading comprehension

Tony1

Well enough. From http://www.m-w.com

There are plenty of 30-days-to-a-better-vocabulary books out there. So cheer up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Again, you sidestep the issue. Something about desperation?

So why are you diverting the issue with etymological niceties? Something about desperation?

Nice to clear that up. I'll take that as about as much of a retraction as I'll ever get for your irresponsible assertions, and be happy with it.

This would be more of your assumptions of motive stained by your predisposition toward the inherent evil in all people. This is the problem of believing in stupid ideas like being born into sin.

Actually, I have to change words every now and then. Everybody knows you're shallow, empty, and afraid. Desperate seems a given, but I can't keep calling your posts the same thing. It doesn't seem to have any effect: you go right on behaving as if you really are this stupid.

You should stop relying on superstition, Tony1. There's nothing there for you until you understand why the superstition exists.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

*Originally posted by tiassa
Well enough. From w w w.m-w.com*

---de·bate (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. tr.

1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.---

Note the meaning of the word "debate."

There are plenty of 30-days-to-a-better-vocabulary books out there. So cheer up.

*Again, you sidestep the issue.*

Something about desperation?
What do you have against the issue of effability which you brought up yourself, and in a negative sense ("ineffable")?

*I'll take that as about as much of a retraction as I'll ever get for your irresponsible assertions, and be happy with it.*

If it's retractions you want, you've got an almost endless supply of future retractions sitting in your own arguments.

*Everybody knows you're shallow, empty, and afraid. *

Hey, I'm not the reflection in your mirror.

*why the superstition exists.*

I've pondered that very issue myself from time to time.
How can an otherwise intelligent person, such as yourself, believe in witchcraft, satanism, sufism, paganism, etc.?

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
(Acts 17:22,23, KJV).

 

Quite revealing, Tony1

And it still doesn't change the fact that we are, by dictionary definitions, opponents. I don't dispute fellow debater; rather, you dispute opponent. I'll assume you just weren't careful enough in constructing your comeback; otherwise, you would have realized what you missed. I'd hate to think you're consciously choosing to construct an idea to zing; it's so much less honest than actually considering the points that are legitimately at hand.

It's also your diversion, Tony1. Consider the following:

Your response to which was to wonder if the effable thing called Tiassa is real. What does that response have to do with what you were responding to? It's pretty stupid of you to take only a few words out of a sentence and then forget what it is you're actually responding to. In fact, it's pretty damn pointless and I thank you for showing us all with your actions what Christianity gets you. But you seem to have sidestepped the issue so far that you're asking me about an issue that doesn't exist: What do you have against the issue of effability which you brought up yourself, and in a negative sense ("ineffable")?

Seriously: what are you talking about? Why can you not actually respond to the issue you're citing? We'd all like to know if this disrespect is motivated by superstition or by a broader ignorance. What's up, Tony1? What is your problem, sir?

You're on, boy. Spotlight's now to you: Why can you not respond to the issues you're citing? Why are you wasting our time with your spiteful, illusory digressions?

Idiotic diversions of yours aside, Tony1, retractions aren't particularly important. But that's as close as I was going to ever see you get to understanding how stupid it is for you to speak for all Christians, much less people whose ideas you apparently can't conceive, such as those non-Christians you spoke for. So yeah, I'm satisfied with our attempt to agree on that one point, since it's close enough to be at least partially effective. But I'm still wondering if those petty diversions of subject are really all you've got in that arsenal.

Well, duh. But compared to its most kind reflections, you're still shallow, empty and afraid. If you weren't so self-centered as to ignore an issue in order to invent a line to write a zinger-comeback against; if you weren't so selfish as to assume you speak for all Christians; if you weren't so frightened to look in your own mirror and compare how that stacks up to the principles of Christian faith, you'd probably notice that you're worshipping yourself. In the end, Sufism reaches a version of this state, but yourself has been erased and what one sees is the essence of the soul.

Well ...

A) Life is a learning process; you'll noticed that Satanism helped me learn its own futility; it was a necessary phase on the way out the Christian door.

B) Life is a learning process; if you ever paid attention, you would have come across the notion that what I respect about the Craft is that it wasn't insulted when I outgrew it. It's still there, but it's an adaptive faith since what you also would have known if you ever paid attention is that I recognize religion as a psychiatric device.

C) Nothing gets carte blanche. It has to make sense in some way relevant to me and be flexible enough to work outside its narrow and specific descriptions. Sufism and witchcarft are flexible; Christianity is not. Christianity doesn't get free acceptance either, obviously. But the thing is that it is offended when it can't stay relevant to the issue. Where the psychology of the Craft worked especially well for me, the psychology of Christianity felt like a betrayal of God: I could not for the life of me shut down my learning capacities as much as Christianity asks. I could not acccept on faith what the Christian community around me demonstrably turned negative. The Craft has a simple premise, and nothing should contradict it unless the witch understands why the contradiction exists. Christianity would prefer to pretend there is no contradiction. Within the Craft, such issues can be resolved; within Christianity, you simply pretend there is no issue.

Besides, one can control their superstitions. Like I said, you should stop relying on your superstitions. Let your intellect out of its Christian box and let it establish a few things for you. As long as you are dependent on your superstitions, you'll continue to come off as an idiot.

Really ... your demonstrations of Christian integrity are disappointing compared to the potential. In fact, it's why I occasionally take the poke that I don't hate God so why do you? As a Christian example here at Sciforums, you've demonstrated that Christian faith is a negative thing. I'm not sure that's what you wanted, though I have in the past called you an atheist provocateur. Either way, you're doing the world a favor by exemplifying the poisonous nature of Christianity that history already shows quite plainly.

re: the Unknown God--Seems a little presumptuous on Paul's part. In fact, it's kind of ironic and makes me smile. A few bits from Armstrong's A History of God:

Armstrong even goes on to note that All religion must begin with some anthropomorphism. A deity which is utterly remote from humanity, such as Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, cannot inspire a spiritual quest. (p. 48)

The Unknown God that Paul protested was a reflection of the presence of the idea of the Unmoved Mover; certes, the altar indicated a sense of anthropomorphism, but nonetheless, by giving a name and personality to God--that is, to make God something specific--Paul has proposed a limited version of that unknown god. The idea of God Paul preached was actually smaller and more self-centered than the unknown god in question.

And this speaks much of Pauline Christianity: the contribution of Paul to the Christian way of thinking is to always be so ridiculously assumptive as he was in Acts 17. We see this, Tony1, in your own posts, when you construct an idea to argue against instead of examining the issue at hand. It seems you are quite Christian, indeed, in this pattern. Just as Paul failed to understand what he was looking at, and favored his own assumptions, so too do you fail.

But that's quite revealing, Tony1. Quite revealing, indeed.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

*Originally posted by tiassa
I'll assume you just weren't careful enough in constructing your comeback; otherwise, you would have realized what you missed.*

I'm still not your opponent unless you figure that we are debating the superiority of light vs the inferiority of darkness.
In that case, I'd agree with you.
Of course, such agreement would be prima facie evidence of not being opponents.

*Your response to which was to wonder if the effable thing called Tiassa is real. What does that response have to do with what you were responding to? *

It was responding to the concept of the ineffability of God.
I couldn't go much farther along the point you were building since the "ineffability" of something brings discourse to an end, by definition.
The truth of the matter is that effability is the heart of debate.

*retractions aren't particularly important.*

Why ask for them?

*Satanism helped me learn its own futility*

At least you learned something.

*you also would have known if you ever paid attention is that I recognize religion as a psychiatric device.*

I have noticed.
Your particular brand of religion gets you psychiatric problems.

*Sufism and witchcarft are flexible; Christianity is not.*

Somewhat like the difference between shifting sands and solid rock.

*I could not for the life of me shut down my learning capacities as much as Christianity asks.*

Yet the total turning off of your mind is but a trifle.
When Mary Jane and your goddess calls, off goes the mind like a switch.

*Christianity would prefer to pretend there is no contradiction. Within the Craft, such issues can be resolved; within Christianity, you simply pretend there is no issue.*

There is contradiction to Christianity.
Your posts are good example.

*The idea of God Paul preached was actually smaller and more self-centered than the unknown god in question.*

True in a way, yet the smallness of Paul's God pales in comparison to the truly awesome, impoverished paucity of your goddess.

*Quite revealing, indeed.*

Apocalyptic?