|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 11, 2013 15:27:48 GMT -5
I'm saying God isn't a conditional lover but the creator. I have still no idea what you are talking about. Matt10 A conditional lover is one who loves you -- if you satisfy certain conditions. Otherwise, he will hate you. So does god love sinners or not? If he does love sinners, then he's an UNCONDITIONAL lover. If he doesn't love sinners, then he's a CONDITIONAL lover.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 15:45:18 GMT -5
I have still no idea what you are talking about. Matt10 A conditional lover is one who loves you -- if you satisfy certain conditions. Otherwise, he will hate you. So does god love sinners or not? If he does love sinners, then he's an UNCONDITIONAL lover. If he doesn't love sinners, then he's a CONDITIONAL lover. I know what a conditional lover is. And I know what an unconditional lover is. What I don't know is the point Lee is trying to make. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 11, 2013 16:08:43 GMT -5
A conditional lover is one who loves you -- if you satisfy certain conditions. Otherwise, he will hate you. So does god love sinners or not? If he does love sinners, then he's an UNCONDITIONAL lover. If he doesn't love sinners, then he's a CONDITIONAL lover. I know what a conditional lover is. And I know what an unconditional lover is. What I don't know is the point Lee is trying to make. Matt10 Sorry, I was really making a response to Lee. Lee is something like my deaf aunt, I think. By the time you get to respond to what he says he's off on a tangent and he can't remember where the conversation started.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 11, 2013 22:43:50 GMT -5
You want freewill, you'll have it, exparte. I didn't say anything about freewill. I simply asked you if there was anything that happened that was not god's will. I also wonder how, believing as you do, you can reconcile the fact that the entity you worship condones so much evil. I asked you: Is there anything that happens that is not god's will?You responded: noSo everything that happens is god's will. Freewill would in that case only apply to god. What happens is not your will but, as you have indicated, god's will. Visualize two concentric circles, the one in the center is our will and the whole circle is God's. In a superlative sense only God has freewill, you're correct. The center represents our local reality, where we can correctly speak of a secondary freewill. WTF will you do about it? First of all I will not worship an entity whose will included the torture and murder of children. Secondly, I encourage people to take responsibility for their actions and not simply claim that everything is god's will. I don't like cowardice either. Thirdly I will continue to work with victims and do all that is possible to remove criminals to prevent them from continuing to harm others. Sounds like a plan.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 11, 2013 23:12:32 GMT -5
Visualize two concentric circles, the one in the center is our will and the whole circle is God's. In a superlative sense only God has freewill, you're correct. The center represents our local reality, where we can correctly speak of a secondary freewill. Imagine it anyway that makes you feel good. In any version you are still a puppet on a string.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 23:58:49 GMT -5
why do you have to tag on a smart comment in some of your posts? just seems like maybe you might have a little contempt for me I have no contempt for you. What I am somewhat contemptuous of is the way Christians have guessed and imagined their way into explanations for so much in the Bible that is absolutely clear enough on its own, but it doesn't mean what Christians want it to mean. They had to do this because most doctrines and theology of modern Christians originated in Paganism and not in the New Testament, and the theologians who are referred to as the "church fathers" are appropriately called that because it was them, not Jesus, who fashioned western Christianity. If it were a result of the general ignorance of people it might be excusable, but we now live in an age where people cannot be excused for not knowing the difference between the Gospels and modern Christianity. So to respond to your previous post, there is a way for us to know exactly what the term "God fearer" meant is Jesus day. No, the definition wasn't given in the Bible, but its absence from the Bible doesn't mean that every other source of its explanation is all a lie. God fearers were former Pagans who were uncircumcised believers in the god of Judaism, as did Jesus. So my question was this: If they already believed in the Christian god, would they be further converted just because they met their god's son? I'm trying to accommodate Christian philosophy into what the Bible says, but I am not inclined to accept that a modern Christian proposed definition of an ancient Jewish expression means something that the Jews did not mean when they used it. I have no objection to or contempt for those who need to believe their own understanding of the scriptures, but I don't usually go along with anything anyone says to me just to get along, even though it gets me in a lot of trouble. how can a christian guess and imagine their way into explanations for so much in the Bible that is absolutely clear enough on its own when it is plainly obvious that a christian is lead by Christ, or is it such a case of we think our thoughts are far better than those of God? i do believe that there is a definition in the Bible of a God fearing/respecting person, it is a definition given by Jesus. To love the Lord thy God with all thy heart soul mind and spirit. That is how one has total respect/God fearing for God. Other words one willing to give God control of the thing which is most precious to human being, "life" to have need to believe their own understanding of the scriptures is very dangerous because man has not the capability of understanding the scriptures alone seeing as it is God who gives the increase
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Dec 12, 2013 0:36:36 GMT -5
I have no contempt for you. What I am somewhat contemptuous of is the way Christians have guessed and imagined their way into explanations for so much in the Bible that is absolutely clear enough on its own, but it doesn't mean what Christians want it to mean. They had to do this because most doctrines and theology of modern Christians originated in Paganism and not in the New Testament, and the theologians who are referred to as the "church fathers" are appropriately called that because it was them, not Jesus, who fashioned western Christianity. If it were a result of the general ignorance of people it might be excusable, but we now live in an age where people cannot be excused for not knowing the difference between the Gospels and modern Christianity. So to respond to your previous post, there is a way for us to know exactly what the term "God fearer" meant is Jesus day. No, the definition wasn't given in the Bible, but its absence from the Bible doesn't mean that every other source of its explanation is all a lie. God fearers were former Pagans who were uncircumcised believers in the god of Judaism, as did Jesus. So my question was this: If they already believed in the Christian god, would they be further converted just because they met their god's son? I'm trying to accommodate Christian philosophy into what the Bible says, but I am not inclined to accept that a modern Christian proposed definition of an ancient Jewish expression means something that the Jews did not mean when they used it. I have no objection to or contempt for those who need to believe their own understanding of the scriptures, but I don't usually go along with anything anyone says to me just to get along, even though it gets me in a lot of trouble. how can a christian guess and imagine their way into explanations for so much in the Bible that is absolutely clear enough on its own when it is plainly obvious that a christian is lead by Christ, or is it such a case of we think our thoughts are far better than those of God? i do believe that there is a definition in the Bible of a God fearing/respecting person, it is a definition given by Jesus. To love the Lord thy God with all thy heart soul mind and spirit. That is how one has total respect/God fearing for God. Other words one willing to give God control of the thing which is most precious to human being, "life" to have need to believe their own understanding of the scriptures is very dangerous because man has not the capability of understanding the scriptures alone seeing as it is God who gives the increase I don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you. You believe what you believe, and it really doesn't make any difference to me. I just thought you would be interested in knowing some of the things I have learned, but apparently not.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 12, 2013 0:51:02 GMT -5
Visualize two concentric circles, the one in the center is our will and the whole circle is God's. In a superlative sense only God has freewill, you're correct. The center represents our local reality, where we can correctly speak of a secondary freewill. Imagine it anyway that makes you feel good. In any version you are still a puppet on a string. Bad analogy. Puppet and puppet-master involves one living being. Creator and created are two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 1:42:31 GMT -5
how can a christian guess and imagine their way into explanations for so much in the Bible that is absolutely clear enough on its own when it is plainly obvious that a christian is lead by Christ, or is it such a case of we think our thoughts are far better than those of God? i do believe that there is a definition in the Bible of a God fearing/respecting person, it is a definition given by Jesus. To love the Lord thy God with all thy heart soul mind and spirit. That is how one has total respect/God fearing for God. Other words one willing to give God control of the thing which is most precious to human being, "life" to have need to believe their own understanding of the scriptures is very dangerous because man has not the capability of understanding the scriptures alone seeing as it is God who gives the increase I don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you. You believe what you believe, and it really doesn't make any difference to me. I just thought you would be interested in knowing some of the things I have learned, but apparently not. what makes you think the things you have learned have any more merit than the things i have learned unless you think the things that you have learned are superior to the things i have learned?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2013 1:59:31 GMT -5
I have no contempt for you. What I am somewhat contemptuous of is the way Christians have guessed and imagined their way into explanations for so much in the Bible that is absolutely clear enough on its own, but it doesn't mean what Christians want it to mean. They had to do this because most doctrines and theology of modern Christians originated in Paganism and not in the New Testament, and the theologians who are referred to as the "church fathers" are appropriately called that because it was them, not Jesus, who fashioned western Christianity. If it were a result of the general ignorance of people it might be excusable, but we now live in an age where people cannot be excused for not knowing the difference between the Gospels and modern Christianity. So to respond to your previous post, there is a way for us to know exactly what the term "God fearer" meant is Jesus day. No, the definition wasn't given in the Bible, but its absence from the Bible doesn't mean that every other source of its explanation is all a lie. God fearers were former Pagans who were uncircumcised believers in the god of Judaism, as did Jesus. So my question was this: If they already believed in the Christian god, would they be further converted just because they met their god's son? I'm trying to accommodate Christian philosophy into what the Bible says, but I am not inclined to accept that a modern Christian proposed definition of an ancient Jewish expression means something that the Jews did not mean when they used it. I have no objection to or contempt for those who need to believe their own understanding of the scriptures, but I don't usually go along with anything anyone says to me just to get along, even though it gets me in a lot of trouble. how can a christian guess and imagine their way into explanations for so much in the Bible that is absolutely clear enough on its own when it is plainly obvious that a christian is lead by Christ, or is it such a case of we think our thoughts are far better than those of God? i do believe that there is a definition in the Bible of a God fearing/respecting person, it is a definition given by Jesus. To love the Lord thy God with all thy heart soul mind and spirit. That is how one has total respect/God fearing for God. Other words one willing to give God control of the thing which is most precious to human being, "life" to have need to believe their own understanding of the scriptures is very dangerous because man has not the capability of understanding the scriptures alone seeing as it is God who gives the increase Why is it very dangerous for man to understand the scriptures being it was man who wrote the scriptures?
God gives what increase?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2013 2:06:21 GMT -5
Imagine it anyway that makes you feel good. In any version you are still a puppet on a string. Bad analogy. Puppet and puppet-master involves one living being. Creator and created are two. Ah, there is such a thing as a living puppet dancing on a string! I've seen a lot of them, also known as sycophants, toadies, apple-polisher, bootlicker, brownnoser, fawner, flunky (also flunkey or flunkie), lickspittle, suck-ups.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2013 8:12:53 GMT -5
Imagine it anyway that makes you feel good. In any version you are still a puppet on a string. Bad analogy. Puppet and puppet-master involves one living being. Creator and created are two. It was a metaphor. How about this: You holding a cage with a mouse in the cage (the cage is like your inner circle). The mouse has free will to do whatever it wants in the cage. Of course, the cage is 2X2X2 so there is little free will anyway. And then you drop the cage into the lake. Not a lot of free will. The mouse is completely under the control of the person. The mouse can only do what the person allows. The idea of free will, in your belief system, is an illusion. Ask the mouse as the cage sinks if that is what it wanted to do.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 12, 2013 8:37:36 GMT -5
Bad analogy. Puppet and puppet-master involves one living being. Creator and created are two. Ah, there is such a thing as a living puppet dancing on a string! I've seen a lot of them, also known as sycophants, toadies, apple-polisher, bootlicker, brownnoser, fawner, flunky (also flunkey or flunkie), lickspittle, suck-ups. That's why we keep recommending Christ where your being is the first object of value, not the shoes you will shine. Discount theologies abandon us to futile, conflicts of interest.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 12, 2013 8:41:38 GMT -5
Bad analogy. Puppet and puppet-master involves one living being. Creator and created are two. It was a metaphor. How about this: You holding a cage with a mouse in the cage (the cage is like your inner circle). The mouse has free will to do whatever it wants in the cage. Of course, the cage is 2X2X2 so there is little free will anyway. And then you drop the cage into the lake. Not a lot of free will. The mouse is completely under the control of the person. The mouse can only do what the person allows. The idea of free will, in your belief system, is an illusion. Ask the mouse as the cage sinks if that is what it wanted to do. We ought to be arguing about whether or not we have a will period. Not even God has carte blanche, freewill. He cannot lie, he cannot deny himself, he cannot, not be God! The freedom you're looking for can only be attained in death!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2013 8:59:24 GMT -5
I think you are missing the point. I am only looking at this from your point of view. I don't have to wait until death to have free will. I do not believe in your "puppet master". It was a metaphor. How about this: You holding a cage with a mouse in the cage (the cage is like your inner circle). The mouse has free will to do whatever it wants in the cage. Of course, the cage is 2X2X2 so there is little free will anyway. And then you drop the cage into the lake. Not a lot of free will. The mouse is completely under the control of the person. The mouse can only do what the person allows. The idea of free will, in your belief system, is an illusion. Ask the mouse as the cage sinks if that is what it wanted to do. We ought to be arguing about whether or not we have a will period. Not even God has carte blanche, freewill. He cannot lie, he cannot deny himself, he cannot, not be God! The freedom you're looking for can only be attained in death!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2013 15:29:52 GMT -5
Ah, there is such a thing as a living puppet dancing on a string! I've seen a lot of them, also known as sycophants, toadies, apple-polisher, bootlicker, brownnoser, fawner, flunky (also flunkey or flunkie), lickspittle, suck-ups. That's why we keep recommending Christ where your being is the first object of value, not the shoes you will shine. Discount theologies abandon us to futile, conflicts of interest. I'm not sure that even you know what you are saying here, -"That's why we keep recommending Christ where your being is the first object of value,"
However, it still sounds like your "Christ" has you as a puppet on a string.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2013 16:04:16 GMT -5
Discount theologies abandon us to futile, conflicts of interest. While that may be true you must remember that the agnosticism of mobility is surprisingly simplistic in its nobility.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2013 18:58:41 GMT -5
Discount theologies abandon us to futile, conflicts of interest. While that may be true you must remember that the agnosticism of mobility is surprisingly simplistic in its nobility. And you can also understand it so much better!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 12, 2013 20:34:04 GMT -5
...Discount theologies abandon us to futile, conflicts of interest. I'm going to use that line with the next WalMart greeter who accosts me.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 12, 2013 21:01:53 GMT -5
...Discount theologies abandon us to futile, conflicts of interest. I'm going to use that line with the next WalMart greeter who accosts me. LOL, you get accosted by Walmart greeters!! You should have a camera ready when you do tell one that line. Total bafflement...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2013 21:06:17 GMT -5
Ah,... I'm ashamed of you two! shopping at Walmart's!
Haven't you heard how they treat their workers?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 12, 2013 21:21:58 GMT -5
I think you are missing the point. I am only looking at this from your point of view. I don't have to wait until death to have free will. I do not believe in your "puppet master". I don't know why. If people wanted to eliminate all risk of subsequent suffering they'd simply choose not to reproduce themselves. Passing the baton, granting freewill or freedom, call it what you will involves risk. If in fact humans didn't begin "poof, here's a pair" (an unlikely scenario IMO because they'd be w/o any manner of context necessary to function), if humans are evolving into what they are meant to be could one reasonably expect this procession to be anything less than a collision of sorts? If God redeems people from jungle-law with eye-for-eye and then improves upon this with the long-range vision or revelation of Christ, what more can you ask for? More randomness and more nihilism? More atheism?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2013 21:59:18 GMT -5
If people wanted to eliminate all risk of subsequent suffering they'd simply choose not to reproduce themselves. Who would want to? I guess the next best thing is to believe that all suffering will end in heaven.I take it you fear risk?This certainly is the false story that creationists/ID people teach.Humans are evolving into what natural selection determines.If you want to sell this premise you will have to offer proof of who you believe is doing the redeeming.Sure. Can you explain the downside?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 12, 2013 22:12:42 GMT -5
Can you explain the downside?
More video games.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 12, 2013 22:13:49 GMT -5
If you want to sell this premise you will have to offer proof of who you believe is doing the redeeming.
Bob wouldn't agree but Christ was in fact a historical person.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 12, 2013 22:15:04 GMT -5
Humans are evolving into what natural selection determines.
Who created the nature of 'natural'?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 12, 2013 22:16:38 GMT -5
I take it you fear risk?
Yes I do, I only had two.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 12, 2013 22:24:36 GMT -5
If you want to sell this premise you will have to offer proof of who you believe is doing the redeeming. Bob wouldn't agree but Christ was in fact a historical person. I think you probably believe that Jesus was a historical person. Christ does not make an appearance in the bible until after Jesus died. But then, Daniel Boone and Andrew Jackson were historical people. What's your point?
|
|