To those who believe in a kind and merciful ? ....why is the world so hostile to life?
Options
Comments
-
No because he wanted to create freewill having creatures THEREFORE he had to allow us the ability to do evil.
But evil doesn't have to exist
in order for us to have free will.
We would have the freedom to choose between
any number of "good" actions; Choosing to do evil
would be like choosing to ride a unicorn instead of a horse.
You only have the option to ride a horse
because unicorns don't exist. So now you still have the free will,
but only the free will to choose which horse to ride.We can do everything possible, not anything we can think of the reason why is very logical if you think about it because once something is created it cannot do anything meaning it cannot do anything it thinks of.
for example people cannot time travel or fly under their own power or negate the laws of cause and effect and when you say you can do anything it has to include the impossible
Right --- but some things are impossible
because of how ? set the world up (according to you).
If ? created a world in which some things are impossible
for you to do, does that not infringe free will?
I want to fly "under my own power" yet I can't
because ? didn't put wings on human beings.
I don't have free will then.
-
No because he wanted to create freewill having creatures THEREFORE he had to allow us the ability to do evil.
But evil doesn't have to exist
in order for us to have free will.
We would have the freedom to choose between
any number of "good" actions; Choosing to do evil
would be like choosing to ride a unicorn instead of a horse.
You only have the option to ride a horse
because unicorns don't exist. So now you still have the free will,
but only the free will to choose which horse to ride.We can do everything possible, not anything we can think of the reason why is very logical if you think about it because once something is created it cannot do anything meaning it cannot do anything it thinks of.
for example people cannot time travel or fly under their own power or negate the laws of cause and effect and when you say you can do anything it has to include the impossible
Right --- but some things are impossible
because of how ? set the world up (according to you).
If ? created a world in which some things are impossible
for you to do, does that not infringe free will?
I want to fly "under my own power" yet I can't
because ? didn't put wings on human beings.
I don't have free will then.
evil does not have to exist because we can choose not to do evil but the possibility of evil does have to exist if we are freewill creatures. CLEARLY MAN continues to choose evil. WE DON'T HAVE only the option to ride the horse we have the horse and unicorn and they both exist. what you propose would be the creation of a creature that does not have freewill.
? cannot do anything that is logically impossible in other words he cannot create a round rectangle and he cannot create a freewill humanity that cannot chose to do evil.
for the bold. There is no correlation with people not being able to break the laws of physics and lack of freewill what you are talking about is lack of ability not lack of freewill. humanity was made with lack of ability but not lack of freewill.
You have the freewill to want to chose to fly under your own power that does not mean you will have the ability. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »@alissowack
You're just assuming I wouldn't listen to Jesus if he came back. But if he came back, made a little speech and worked enough miracles, who wouldn't be impressed?
Why would a ? have a hard time convincing others of the truth? I suppose he's unable to prove himself, and that's fine. He has that right.
I'm not saying you wouldn't listen. I'm saying you won't accept what he has to say about you...which in turn you will not give your life to him.
I'm not here to try to get e-converts. My issue is...for someone who is "open" to the existence of ? , you are being pretty narrow as to how ? presents Himself. If ? exists, then He must exist according to how "you" want Him to be...and not outside of anything that challenges your comfort zone. The fact that we Christians say that ? has revealed Himself in a book bothers you. You think that ? has to do something spectacular for people to follow Him when He doesn't. Jesus's storyline ought to hint to that. He wasn't born in a palace. He wasn't sitting on an earthly throne with a multitude of people bowing down at his feet. Apart from his miracles, he was ordinary. He was one of us. He was approachable; vulnerable to the foolishness of the world.
You say I am "being narrow" with how your ? presents himself or should present himself. But it's not fair that Jesus performed miracles for some of his best buddies but the rest of us just gotta take his word for it.
Wasn't Thomas or one of the other apostles a doubter too? Peter as well? Jesus chose to do a magic trick or two and convinced them that he was the real deal. So it's not fair that Jesus proves some doubters wrong but other doubters just have to accept what they haven't seen for thousands of years. If David Blaine lived 2,000 years ago, maybe he also could have convinced people he was a ? . After all, you are being narrow in your belief of a ? too, you reject thousands of other gods right now.
Is Jesus merely defined by the miracles? Does he have anything to say about your (and my) sins? Thomas and Peter didn't come to faith because of the miracles. Their attitude was not..."Bravo!!! I'm impressed...I guess I'll follow you now". They came to faith realizing their sin and turning to Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Either way, Jesus worked the miracles in front of them and I'm sure the miracles were a huge reason for them converting. If doubting Thomas and Peter never saw the "miracles", and lived 2,000 years later in our time, they would have almost no reason to convert.
There were people in the Bible who didn't need a miracle to believe in Jesus so what about them? One "small" example is the Samaritan woman. She wasn't like "show me trick and I will follow you". Jesus didn't "magically" cause the stones to fall out of her accusers's hands. He exposed their sin and they turned away. Jesus exposed her sins and she came to faith.
...and what about Judas? According to your understanding, he should have been convinced as well. He was a disciple so he had a front row seat to it all. But he still ended up betraying Jesus and in the end, realizing he was in sin, killed himself. And I guess Jesus's Cruxificion could have been prevented if he just did a few more magic tricks in front of the Jews. The Jews had him crucified because they believe he was a blasphemer...not because they were not impressed with the show.
Miracles were a part of what Jesus did in his ministry, but he is not ultimately defined my his miracles which I hope you will see. He came to show how we are all sinners in need of a savior. If you don't embrace that, a thousand "miracles" are not going to change your mind.
Ok you have some fair points there, Jesus didn't need miracles to convince all of his followers back then. But there's a difference between being a decent guy and proving one is a ? and heaven only achievable by being Christian and following the Bible's rules (that's a whole other thread, but I'm tempted to bring up some of the odd and strange rules there).
And let's say Jesus is a "savior", who is gonna save the paralyzed children suffering from the Zika virus? As if being a parent isn't tough enough, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions someday, have to deal with nature made viruses that paralyze a child and shrink their heads in the cruelest of ways? Who is gonna save the homeless people in NY and elsewhere from freezing in this cold and snow storm that is setting records? Humans are gonna keep "sinning", so what's Jesus waiting for? Too many contradictions in your narrative.
But like I've said in previous posts...the issue of sin is spiritual. If physically curing someone of disease makes them spiritually well, then I would be in your corner as to whether Jesus's Sacrifice has done anything. But freeing someone of disease or bad circumstances is not going to change them spiritually. It's like giving an addict a billion dollars. It's not going to matter it you take an addict out of a bad environment; give him or her a life of luxury if there is not going to be a spiritual change...otherwise it is only going to fuel their addiction. -
rodneyskinner wrote: »For the ARGUMENT that MAN has sinned and thus he's beholden to some debt of ? . Couple of things wrong with this theory.
1 ? manipulated mankind after their supposed sin. Therefore how can he blame them for being sinners. 2 Examples stand out. 1 Kicking Eve and Adam out of the garden. 2 Confusing the languages in the Tower of Babel. Specifically stating is there nothing man will be able to do if they spoke one language.
2 ? mentions no such sin when establishing his covenant with Israel. He never said since Adam sinned then you must always be servants. He said I brought you out of the land of EGYPT and for that you are indebted to me. I have made a covenant relationship with you. One in which the Jews did not break after building the second temple. No he stated that you are my chosen people that I have chosen as a nation. As a nation I'm going to send you my Messaiah.
3. Jesus was not the WORLDS messiah. Understand what that word means. Then you will understand how he didn't fulfill the covenant between Israel and ? . Therefore saying that he will make things right upon his return is Hogwash. Go look at the original promise given to the Jews in Isaiah.
4. ? never fulfills a promise not the other way around. What makes you think he will fulfill one now? Its like making a deal with a lawyer who isn't even clever at deceiving you. Where is the land of Milk and Honey originally promised to the Jews in ? . Look at the promise he made in Isaiah
For you will spread out to the right and to the left;
your descendants will dispossess nations
and settle in their desolate cities.
4 “Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame.
Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated.
You will forget the shame of your youth
and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.
That never happened.
Now we are to believe in a Messiah's return that is almost 2000 years delayed.
(FOR YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO GRAB ISAIAH TEXT AND THEN SAY JESUS WAS PREDICTED IN ISAIAH LET ME POINT OUT THAT THE BOOK IS TALKING ABOUT CYRUS. Specifically it states.
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
WHERE ARE JESUS'S OFFSPRING?)
1. ? is not blaming all of mankind for being sinners but he does acknowledge that that's the state mankind is in now when it comes is israel things get more complex because of the covenants he made with them.
2. The jews did break the law after the second temple read Malachi it's right there at the very start of the book
3. Israel misunderstood the covenant, Make things right??? ? is not really coming back to make things right he's coming back to end things.
4. funny enough is seems that the jews are in a way doing that right now to the palestinians kicking them our of their own towns but anyway isaiah 53 is not about cyrus, does this sound like any mortal king to you
isa 53:3
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
jesus offspring are this spiritual children the millions of christians all across the planet
1. I don't even know how you guys keep all these conflicting beliefs in your head. Didn't rebutal the point. Can't judge, can't say we are all sinners if you stifled our growth.
2. Wrong. Malachi is a clear WARNING to the priest. That if they don't change the behavior then there will be consequences and it wasn't something ? didn't appreciate. ? didn't clearly say you have broken the covenant and I have abandoned you.
3. Israel didn't misunderstand the covenant. If they did that would constitute fraud on ? 's part for allowing death at Masada.
4. Is absolutely about Cyrus. All ancient leaders upon death were treated as going to the afterlife and would interceded on their behalf. READ ABOUT CYRUS'S BODY AFTER HE DIED. http://www.cyrusthegreat.net/ Then read the last part of 52. Jesus is not described in this way. He wasnt disfigured in the face at all. Answer me this when did Isaiah stop talking about Cyrus? -
we have the horse and unicorn and they both exist
he cannot create a freewill humanity that cannot chose to do evil.
1. That's not logically impossible
2. Then he's not omnipotentwhat you are talking about is lack of ability not lack of freewill. humanity was made with lack of ability but not lack of freewill. You have the freewill to want to chose to fly under your own power that does not mean you will have the ability.
Why not create humans with the lack of ability to do evil?
Evil could be completely inconceivable to human beings.
They retain free will because they have the freedom to choose
between an infinite number of "good" actions, the same way
you have the freedom to choose
between an infinite number of "possible" actions.
-
you do understand that me rolling with the horse and unicorn thing was just my answer to your analogywe have the horse and unicorn and they both existhe cannot create a freewill humanity that cannot chose to do evil.
1. That's not logically impossible
2. Then he's not omnipotentwhat you are talking about is lack of ability not lack of freewill. humanity was made with lack of ability but not lack of freewill. You have the freewill to want to chose to fly under your own power that does not mean you will have the ability.
Why not create humans with the lack of ability to do evil?
Evil could be completely inconceivable to human beings.
They retain free will because they have the freedom to choose
between an infinite number of "good" actions, the same way
you have the freedom to choose
between an infinite number of "possible" actions.
1. yes it is
2. when christians say ? can do anything we don't mean he can do nonsense such as create round squares or do anything that is logically impossible
you cannot have lack of ability to do evil and also have freewill
remember evil is a judgement on an action ( action here also includes thought) so if i am unable to make a judgement on your freewill actions that runs contrary to your judgement of said action then i don't have freewill. if i lack the ability to make that judgement then that would mean my will and your will would be the same.
If you are going to create more than one human with freewill THEN you have to give them the ability to do evil in other words you have to give them the ability to judge actions as being either good or evil deny them this and you don't have freewill you have one will
therefore creating a humanity without the ability to conceive of evil is also logically impossible
-
rodneyskinner wrote: »rodneyskinner wrote: »For the ARGUMENT that MAN has sinned and thus he's beholden to some debt of ? . Couple of things wrong with this theory.
1 ? manipulated mankind after their supposed sin. Therefore how can he blame them for being sinners. 2 Examples stand out. 1 Kicking Eve and Adam out of the garden. 2 Confusing the languages in the Tower of Babel. Specifically stating is there nothing man will be able to do if they spoke one language.
2 ? mentions no such sin when establishing his covenant with Israel. He never said since Adam sinned then you must always be servants. He said I brought you out of the land of EGYPT and for that you are indebted to me. I have made a covenant relationship with you. One in which the Jews did not break after building the second temple. No he stated that you are my chosen people that I have chosen as a nation. As a nation I'm going to send you my Messaiah.
3. Jesus was not the WORLDS messiah. Understand what that word means. Then you will understand how he didn't fulfill the covenant between Israel and ? . Therefore saying that he will make things right upon his return is Hogwash. Go look at the original promise given to the Jews in Isaiah.
4. ? never fulfills a promise not the other way around. What makes you think he will fulfill one now? Its like making a deal with a lawyer who isn't even clever at deceiving you. Where is the land of Milk and Honey originally promised to the Jews in ? . Look at the promise he made in Isaiah
For you will spread out to the right and to the left;
your descendants will dispossess nations
and settle in their desolate cities.
4 “Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame.
Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated.
You will forget the shame of your youth
and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood.
That never happened.
Now we are to believe in a Messiah's return that is almost 2000 years delayed.
(FOR YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO GRAB ISAIAH TEXT AND THEN SAY JESUS WAS PREDICTED IN ISAIAH LET ME POINT OUT THAT THE BOOK IS TALKING ABOUT CYRUS. Specifically it states.
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
WHERE ARE JESUS'S OFFSPRING?)
1. ? is not blaming all of mankind for being sinners but he does acknowledge that that's the state mankind is in now when it comes is israel things get more complex because of the covenants he made with them.
2. The jews did break the law after the second temple read Malachi it's right there at the very start of the book
3. Israel misunderstood the covenant, Make things right??? ? is not really coming back to make things right he's coming back to end things.
4. funny enough is seems that the jews are in a way doing that right now to the palestinians kicking them our of their own towns but anyway isaiah 53 is not about cyrus, does this sound like any mortal king to you
isa 53:3
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
jesus offspring are this spiritual children the millions of christians all across the planet
1. I don't even know how you guys keep all these conflicting beliefs in your head. Didn't rebutal the point. Can't judge, can't say we are all sinners if you stifled our growth.
2. Wrong. Malachi is a clear WARNING to the priest. That if they don't change the behavior then there will be consequences and it wasn't something ? didn't appreciate. ? didn't clearly say you have broken the covenant and I have abandoned you.
3. Israel didn't misunderstand the covenant. If they did that would constitute fraud on ? 's part for allowing death at Masada.
4. Is absolutely about Cyrus. All ancient leaders upon death were treated as going to the afterlife and would interceded on their behalf. READ ABOUT CYRUS'S BODY AFTER HE DIED. http://www.cyrusthegreat.net/ Then read the last part of 52. Jesus is not described in this way. He wasnt disfigured in the face at all. Answer me this when did Isaiah stop talking about Cyrus?
1. There nothing to rebut because the premise is rejected as ? is not blaming anybody for being sinners after the garden. we were just born in sin meaning we are born into a marred world.
2. MALACHI IS MORE THAN JUST A WARNING TO THE PRIEST, actually read the book
MAL1:1 A prophecy: The word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi.[a]
Mal 3:9 You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me.
? HAS NOT ABANDONED ISRAEL in the past he punished them but he never totally abandons israel he always saves a remnant.
3. ? always allows death and in any case the jews at masada killed themselves which in of itself showed lack of faith
4. isa 53 has nothing to do with cyrus you are cherry picking read the whole of isa 53 nothing in it describes cyrus cyrus was killed among his warriors while on a campaign isa 53:7-9
7saysHe was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
9He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
the website you linked clearly said he was killed in revenge for killing some body
ISA 52 DOES NOT SAY specify disfigurement in the face only some translations make that leap but anyway if you read the discriptions on how jesus was beaten by the romans and if you have any knowledge about roman it fits the end of isa52 much better than cyrus -
you do understand that me rolling with the horse and unicorn thing was just my answer to your analogy
My analogy is in the context of an imagined world
where evil is just as non-existent as unicorns.1. yes it is
2. when christians say ? can do anything we don't mean he can do nonsense such as create round squares or do anything that is logically impossible
But Christians claim that ? can defy the rules of logic and physics all the time.
Why isn't he able to make anything possible? Isn't he the author of reality?
Or does ? necessarily follow rules that precede his existence?you cannot have lack of ability to do evil and also have freewill
I'm not convinced.remember evil is a judgement on an action ( action here also includes thought) so if i am unable to make a judgement on your freewill actions that runs contrary to your judgement of said action then i don't have freewill. if i lack the ability to make that judgement then that would mean my will and your will would be the same.
If you are going to create more than one human with freewill THEN you have to give them the ability to do evil in other words you have to give them the ability to judge actions as being either good or evil deny them this and you don't have freewill you have one will
therefore creating a humanity without the ability to conceive of evil is also logically impossible
Remember that in your world view, evil is not a judgment on our part.
To you, evil is not relative;
evil is intrinsic in certain things.
The Abrahamic religions teach a moral absolutism.
So if ? decides what is evil,
Why even create it? -
Delete
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »I want to say something.
Debating belief after belief is kinda of ? . I can't destroy your belief with another belief and convert you without doing something physical in the first place. This is why a proper conversation regarding this is out of sync.
@kingblaze84 @zzombie show some scholarship to debate and use a tangible result to prove the case and study or otherwise this is philosophy versus philosophy. Because I can take some good stuff out of the bible and use it to my benefit and I take some things from King Blaze philosophy thoughts which he gained and use to good use.
That doesn't make sense in this concept because it is a philosophical discussion. -
The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »I want to say something.
Debating belief after belief is kinda of ? . I can't destroy your belief with another belief and convert you without doing something physical in the first place. This is why a proper conversation regarding this is out of sync.
@kingblaze84 @zzombie show some scholarship to debate and use a tangible result to prove the case and study or otherwise this is philosophy versus philosophy. Because I can take some good stuff out of the bible and use it to my benefit and I take some things from King Blaze philosophy thoughts which he gained and use to good use.
That doesn't make sense in this concept because it is a philosophical discussion.
yeah....true carry on.... @The_Jackal this debate ain't going no where and it's the same ol'e after year after year from 2013.
Let's do something different. -
you do understand that me rolling with the horse and unicorn thing was just my answer to your analogy
My analogy is in the context of an imagined world
where evil is just as non-existent as unicorns.1. yes it is2. when christians say ? can do anything we don't mean he can do nonsense such as create round squares or do anything that is logically impossible
But Christians claim that ? can defy the rules of logic and physics all the time.
Why isn't he able to make anything possible? Isn't he the author of reality?
Or does ? necessarily follow rules that precede his existence?you cannot have lack of ability to do evil and also have freewill
I'm not convinced.remember evil is a judgement on an action ( action here also includes thought) so if i am unable to make a judgement on your freewill actions that runs contrary to your judgement of said action then i don't have freewill. if i lack the ability to make that judgement then that would mean my will and your will would be the same.
If you are going to create more than one human with freewill THEN you have to give them the ability to do evil in other words you have to give them the ability to judge actions as being either good or evil deny them this and you don't have freewill you have one will
therefore creating a humanity without the ability to conceive of evil is also logically impossible
Remember that in your world view, evil is not a judgment on our part.
To you, evil is not relative;
evil is intrinsic in certain things.
The Abrahamic religions teach a moral absolutism.
So if ? decides what is evil,
Why even create it?
The world you think is imagined is not imagined it is real that is what i am saying and ? by his very existence prevents anything that is logically inconsistent from being created there cannot be round squares the same way there cannot be anything before ? the same way there cannot be freewill without the possibility of evil.
? does not create evil, ? can however create calamity which is different thing from evil. Man creates evil, evil being defined as ANY state of being that is contrary to ? 's character.
you can reject logic all you want i don't really get into these discussions to convince anybody of anything i only want to explain if you reject i then that's on you, i've done my part.
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »I want to say something.
Debating belief after belief is kinda of ? . I can't destroy your belief with another belief and convert you without doing something physical in the first place. This is why a proper conversation regarding this is out of sync.
@kingblaze84 @zzombie show some scholarship to debate and use a tangible result to prove the case and study or otherwise this is philosophy versus philosophy. Because I can take some good stuff out of the bible and use it to my benefit and I take some things from King Blaze philosophy thoughts which he gained and use to good use.
That doesn't make sense in this concept because it is a philosophical discussion.
yeah....true carry on.... @The_Jackal this debate ain't going no where and it's the same ol'e after year after year from 2013.
Let's do something different.
that's never going to happen christians answered all these questions centuries ago yet atheist and people who hate the ? of the bible keep asking the same stupid questions not out of seeking understanding but simply as a way to troll christians, people like kingblaze for example really have no interest in understanding christianity or christians he really just wants to bash and disrespect us and our faith. then we have the sophist who use semantics and hair splitting to try and disparage this religion that has lasted for 2,000 years yet these people think that these simplistic questions have not been answered before. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »I want to say something.
Debating belief after belief is kinda of ? . I can't destroy your belief with another belief and convert you without doing something physical in the first place. This is why a proper conversation regarding this is out of sync.
@kingblaze84 @zzombie show some scholarship to debate and use a tangible result to prove the case and study or otherwise this is philosophy versus philosophy. Because I can take some good stuff out of the bible and use it to my benefit and I take some things from King Blaze philosophy thoughts which he gained and use to good use.
That doesn't make sense in this concept because it is a philosophical discussion.
yeah....true carry on.... @The_Jackal this debate ain't going no where and it's the same ol'e after year after year from 2013.
Let's do something different.
that's never going to happen christians answered all these questions centuries ago yet atheist and people who hate the ? of the bible keep asking the same stupid questions not out of seeking understanding but simply as a way to troll christians, people like kingblaze for example really have no interest in understanding christianity or christians he really just wants to bash and disrespect us and our faith. then we have the sophist who use semantics and hair splitting to try and disparage this religion that has lasted for 2,000 years yet these people think that these simplistic questions have not been answered before.
I think it's anger and disgruntlement but everyone has their own reasoning. I think all religions should have their personal beliefs as long as it doesn't negatively impact anyone else or use conniving methods to get people in their congregation, mosques, temples or whatever. And no psuedo claims and don't give sources on things. That's the only thing I really care and why I debated DOU in the first place, not cause of his beliefs but his constant fear mongering and horrible scholarship. There are tons of christian scholars who have great amazing research and information, but I have went hard on atheists who had horrible psuedo claims. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »I want to say something.
Debating belief after belief is kinda of ? . I can't destroy your belief with another belief and convert you without doing something physical in the first place. This is why a proper conversation regarding this is out of sync.
@kingblaze84 @zzombie show some scholarship to debate and use a tangible result to prove the case and study or otherwise this is philosophy versus philosophy. Because I can take some good stuff out of the bible and use it to my benefit and I take some things from King Blaze philosophy thoughts which he gained and use to good use.
That doesn't make sense in this concept because it is a philosophical discussion.
yeah....true carry on.... @The_Jackal this debate ain't going no where and it's the same ol'e after year after year from 2013.
Let's do something different.
Blame blaze. Ik I'm not the only person in here who sees in every religion thread he spouts the sane ? ? in every thread and ? answer and he just ignores it. Don't even like talking about religion cause atleast to me more important things as far as philosophy comes that ? csn discuss . -
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »I want to say something.
Debating belief after belief is kinda of ? . I can't destroy your belief with another belief and convert you without doing something physical in the first place. This is why a proper conversation regarding this is out of sync.
@kingblaze84 @zzombie show some scholarship to debate and use a tangible result to prove the case and study or otherwise this is philosophy versus philosophy. Because I can take some good stuff out of the bible and use it to my benefit and I take some things from King Blaze philosophy thoughts which he gained and use to good use.
That doesn't make sense in this concept because it is a philosophical discussion.
yeah....true carry on.... @The_Jackal this debate ain't going no where and it's the same ol'e after year after year from 2013.
Let's do something different.
The good thing about the thread question is that it's open, not just to Christians, but to people of all faiths. And people of no faith too, or those who may believe in a ? but are not religious. I was hoping to hear from a few Muslims on this subject too, but I know there's only a few on this site (from what I see). There are plenty of agnostic theists out there too and we've heard from a few here.
People can post any viewpoint they want, but they shouldn't be afraid to have it challenged, including myself. All part of learning and understanding, whether we agree or disagree.
-
The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »I want to say something.
Debating belief after belief is kinda of ? . I can't destroy your belief with another belief and convert you without doing something physical in the first place. This is why a proper conversation regarding this is out of sync.
@kingblaze84 @zzombie show some scholarship to debate and use a tangible result to prove the case and study or otherwise this is philosophy versus philosophy. Because I can take some good stuff out of the bible and use it to my benefit and I take some things from King Blaze philosophy thoughts which he gained and use to good use.
That doesn't make sense in this concept because it is a philosophical discussion.
yeah....true carry on.... @The_Jackal this debate ain't going no where and it's the same ol'e after year after year from 2013.
Let's do something different.
Blame blaze. Ik I'm not the only person in here who sees in every religion thread he spouts the sane ? ? in every thread and ? answer and he just ignores it. Don't even like talking about religion cause atleast to me more important things as far as philosophy comes that ? csn discuss .
If I was ignoring the posts, I wouldn't be responding to them. I post legit questions to the answers people give, and if things don't make much sense after awhile, people shouldn't be afraid to call that answer out.
I do agree there are more important issues out there, but it's not like the question I have is going anywhere, especially for those who are observant of the way the world is these days. The Zika virus has spread to the Americas and over 30 nations have been affected now, so many people worldwide are wondering where some of these all powerful and omnipotent gods are. If they refuse to stop the Zika virus, that's fine. But it makes people wonder about the world. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »I want to say something.
Debating belief after belief is kinda of ? . I can't destroy your belief with another belief and convert you without doing something physical in the first place. This is why a proper conversation regarding this is out of sync.
@kingblaze84 @zzombie show some scholarship to debate and use a tangible result to prove the case and study or otherwise this is philosophy versus philosophy. Because I can take some good stuff out of the bible and use it to my benefit and I take some things from King Blaze philosophy thoughts which he gained and use to good use.
That doesn't make sense in this concept because it is a philosophical discussion.
yeah....true carry on.... @The_Jackal this debate ain't going no where and it's the same ol'e after year after year from 2013.
Let's do something different.
Blame blaze. Ik I'm not the only person in here who sees in every religion thread he spouts the sane ? ? in every thread and ? answer and he just ignores it. Don't even like talking about religion cause atleast to me more important things as far as philosophy comes that ? csn discuss .
If I was ignoring the posts, I wouldn't be responding to them. I post legit questions to the answers people give, and if things don't make much sense after awhile, people shouldn't be afraid to call that answer out.
I do agree there are more important issues out there, but it's not like the question I have is going anywhere, especially for those who are observant of the way the world is these days. The Zika virus has spread to the Americas and over 30 nations have been affected now, so many people worldwide are wondering where some of these all powerful and omnipotent gods are. If they refuse to stop the Zika virus, that's fine. But it makes people wonder about the world.
You do ignore the answers cause you continually make the same religious threads that delve into the same topic and sane ? question and statements. It's pretty damn annoying.
I don't get how you don't understand the whole concept of ? (in christian sense) not interfere in because it's completly a contradiction to freewill. Why would he intervene in human history, why would he limit human progress. He read ? but you don't comprehend the post and you sure as ? don't comprehend and study the bible. Nothing wrong with it just that all the answers are conveniently in it -
alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »@alissowack
You're just assuming I wouldn't listen to Jesus if he came back. But if he came back, made a little speech and worked enough miracles, who wouldn't be impressed?
Why would a ? have a hard time convincing others of the truth? I suppose he's unable to prove himself, and that's fine. He has that right.
I'm not saying you wouldn't listen. I'm saying you won't accept what he has to say about you...which in turn you will not give your life to him.
I'm not here to try to get e-converts. My issue is...for someone who is "open" to the existence of ? , you are being pretty narrow as to how ? presents Himself. If ? exists, then He must exist according to how "you" want Him to be...and not outside of anything that challenges your comfort zone. The fact that we Christians say that ? has revealed Himself in a book bothers you. You think that ? has to do something spectacular for people to follow Him when He doesn't. Jesus's storyline ought to hint to that. He wasn't born in a palace. He wasn't sitting on an earthly throne with a multitude of people bowing down at his feet. Apart from his miracles, he was ordinary. He was one of us. He was approachable; vulnerable to the foolishness of the world.
You say I am "being narrow" with how your ? presents himself or should present himself. But it's not fair that Jesus performed miracles for some of his best buddies but the rest of us just gotta take his word for it.
Wasn't Thomas or one of the other apostles a doubter too? Peter as well? Jesus chose to do a magic trick or two and convinced them that he was the real deal. So it's not fair that Jesus proves some doubters wrong but other doubters just have to accept what they haven't seen for thousands of years. If David Blaine lived 2,000 years ago, maybe he also could have convinced people he was a ? . After all, you are being narrow in your belief of a ? too, you reject thousands of other gods right now.
Is Jesus merely defined by the miracles? Does he have anything to say about your (and my) sins? Thomas and Peter didn't come to faith because of the miracles. Their attitude was not..."Bravo!!! I'm impressed...I guess I'll follow you now". They came to faith realizing their sin and turning to Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Either way, Jesus worked the miracles in front of them and I'm sure the miracles were a huge reason for them converting. If doubting Thomas and Peter never saw the "miracles", and lived 2,000 years later in our time, they would have almost no reason to convert.
There were people in the Bible who didn't need a miracle to believe in Jesus so what about them? One "small" example is the Samaritan woman. She wasn't like "show me trick and I will follow you". Jesus didn't "magically" cause the stones to fall out of her accusers's hands. He exposed their sin and they turned away. Jesus exposed her sins and she came to faith.
...and what about Judas? According to your understanding, he should have been convinced as well. He was a disciple so he had a front row seat to it all. But he still ended up betraying Jesus and in the end, realizing he was in sin, killed himself. And I guess Jesus's Cruxificion could have been prevented if he just did a few more magic tricks in front of the Jews. The Jews had him crucified because they believe he was a blasphemer...not because they were not impressed with the show.
Miracles were a part of what Jesus did in his ministry, but he is not ultimately defined my his miracles which I hope you will see. He came to show how we are all sinners in need of a savior. If you don't embrace that, a thousand "miracles" are not going to change your mind.
Ok you have some fair points there, Jesus didn't need miracles to convince all of his followers back then. But there's a difference between being a decent guy and proving one is a ? and heaven only achievable by being Christian and following the Bible's rules (that's a whole other thread, but I'm tempted to bring up some of the odd and strange rules there).
And let's say Jesus is a "savior", who is gonna save the paralyzed children suffering from the Zika virus? As if being a parent isn't tough enough, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions someday, have to deal with nature made viruses that paralyze a child and shrink their heads in the cruelest of ways? Who is gonna save the homeless people in NY and elsewhere from freezing in this cold and snow storm that is setting records? Humans are gonna keep "sinning", so what's Jesus waiting for? Too many contradictions in your narrative.
But like I've said in previous posts...the issue of sin is spiritual. If physically curing someone of disease makes them spiritually well, then I would be in your corner as to whether Jesus's Sacrifice has done anything. But freeing someone of disease or bad circumstances is not going to change them spiritually. It's like giving an addict a billion dollars. It's not going to matter it you take an addict out of a bad environment; give him or her a life of luxury if there is not going to be a spiritual change...otherwise it is only going to fuel their addiction.
Doesn't it seem impossible at this point that 100% of humanity is going to be on the same page spiritually? Some people are not spiritual at all, they are about what's on Earth and that's it. Others are spiritual without worshipping a ? , and some have to be spiritual and religious or just religious.
There are so many viewpoints out there, with so many different religions that the Bible ? has been unable to annihilate. So with all the competition your ? has to deal with, does it really make sense for it to not really do anything? Otherwise, it may be too late for people to be on the same path spiritually. -
The_Jackal wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »I want to say something.
Debating belief after belief is kinda of ? . I can't destroy your belief with another belief and convert you without doing something physical in the first place. This is why a proper conversation regarding this is out of sync.
@kingblaze84 @zzombie show some scholarship to debate and use a tangible result to prove the case and study or otherwise this is philosophy versus philosophy. Because I can take some good stuff out of the bible and use it to my benefit and I take some things from King Blaze philosophy thoughts which he gained and use to good use.
That doesn't make sense in this concept because it is a philosophical discussion.
yeah....true carry on.... @The_Jackal this debate ain't going no where and it's the same ol'e after year after year from 2013.
Let's do something different.
Blame blaze. Ik I'm not the only person in here who sees in every religion thread he spouts the sane ? ? in every thread and ? answer and he just ignores it. Don't even like talking about religion cause atleast to me more important things as far as philosophy comes that ? csn discuss .
If I was ignoring the posts, I wouldn't be responding to them. I post legit questions to the answers people give, and if things don't make much sense after awhile, people shouldn't be afraid to call that answer out.
I do agree there are more important issues out there, but it's not like the question I have is going anywhere, especially for those who are observant of the way the world is these days. The Zika virus has spread to the Americas and over 30 nations have been affected now, so many people worldwide are wondering where some of these all powerful and omnipotent gods are. If they refuse to stop the Zika virus, that's fine. But it makes people wonder about the world.
You do ignore the answers cause you continually make the same religious threads that delve into the same topic and sane ? question and statements. It's pretty damn annoying.
I don't get how you don't understand the whole concept of ? (in christian sense) not interfere in because it's completly a contradiction to freewill. Why would he intervene in human history, why would he limit human progress. He read ? but you don't comprehend the post and you sure as ? don't comprehend and study the bible. Nothing wrong with it just that all the answers are conveniently in it
I haven't made a thread on religion in years, I can't even remember the last time I made one before this one.
And I do understand the Bible, for the thousandth time I went to Catholic school for 10 years of my life, getting an A or A+ in religion class each time. I've spoken with not just priests but pastors and ministers, even Black Israelite leaders who love the Old Testament. Read over the Bible with them all and realized my questions were still not being answered.
And I never said your ? has to intervene in human history, but the Zika virus and other things causing chaos and havok around the world allows my question to live on. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »kingblaze84 wrote: »@alissowack
You're just assuming I wouldn't listen to Jesus if he came back. But if he came back, made a little speech and worked enough miracles, who wouldn't be impressed?
Why would a ? have a hard time convincing others of the truth? I suppose he's unable to prove himself, and that's fine. He has that right.
I'm not saying you wouldn't listen. I'm saying you won't accept what he has to say about you...which in turn you will not give your life to him.
I'm not here to try to get e-converts. My issue is...for someone who is "open" to the existence of ? , you are being pretty narrow as to how ? presents Himself. If ? exists, then He must exist according to how "you" want Him to be...and not outside of anything that challenges your comfort zone. The fact that we Christians say that ? has revealed Himself in a book bothers you. You think that ? has to do something spectacular for people to follow Him when He doesn't. Jesus's storyline ought to hint to that. He wasn't born in a palace. He wasn't sitting on an earthly throne with a multitude of people bowing down at his feet. Apart from his miracles, he was ordinary. He was one of us. He was approachable; vulnerable to the foolishness of the world.
You say I am "being narrow" with how your ? presents himself or should present himself. But it's not fair that Jesus performed miracles for some of his best buddies but the rest of us just gotta take his word for it.
Wasn't Thomas or one of the other apostles a doubter too? Peter as well? Jesus chose to do a magic trick or two and convinced them that he was the real deal. So it's not fair that Jesus proves some doubters wrong but other doubters just have to accept what they haven't seen for thousands of years. If David Blaine lived 2,000 years ago, maybe he also could have convinced people he was a ? . After all, you are being narrow in your belief of a ? too, you reject thousands of other gods right now.
Is Jesus merely defined by the miracles? Does he have anything to say about your (and my) sins? Thomas and Peter didn't come to faith because of the miracles. Their attitude was not..."Bravo!!! I'm impressed...I guess I'll follow you now". They came to faith realizing their sin and turning to Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Either way, Jesus worked the miracles in front of them and I'm sure the miracles were a huge reason for them converting. If doubting Thomas and Peter never saw the "miracles", and lived 2,000 years later in our time, they would have almost no reason to convert.
There were people in the Bible who didn't need a miracle to believe in Jesus so what about them? One "small" example is the Samaritan woman. She wasn't like "show me trick and I will follow you". Jesus didn't "magically" cause the stones to fall out of her accusers's hands. He exposed their sin and they turned away. Jesus exposed her sins and she came to faith.
...and what about Judas? According to your understanding, he should have been convinced as well. He was a disciple so he had a front row seat to it all. But he still ended up betraying Jesus and in the end, realizing he was in sin, killed himself. And I guess Jesus's Cruxificion could have been prevented if he just did a few more magic tricks in front of the Jews. The Jews had him crucified because they believe he was a blasphemer...not because they were not impressed with the show.
Miracles were a part of what Jesus did in his ministry, but he is not ultimately defined my his miracles which I hope you will see. He came to show how we are all sinners in need of a savior. If you don't embrace that, a thousand "miracles" are not going to change your mind.
Ok you have some fair points there, Jesus didn't need miracles to convince all of his followers back then. But there's a difference between being a decent guy and proving one is a ? and heaven only achievable by being Christian and following the Bible's rules (that's a whole other thread, but I'm tempted to bring up some of the odd and strange rules there).
And let's say Jesus is a "savior", who is gonna save the paralyzed children suffering from the Zika virus? As if being a parent isn't tough enough, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions someday, have to deal with nature made viruses that paralyze a child and shrink their heads in the cruelest of ways? Who is gonna save the homeless people in NY and elsewhere from freezing in this cold and snow storm that is setting records? Humans are gonna keep "sinning", so what's Jesus waiting for? Too many contradictions in your narrative.
But like I've said in previous posts...the issue of sin is spiritual. If physically curing someone of disease makes them spiritually well, then I would be in your corner as to whether Jesus's Sacrifice has done anything. But freeing someone of disease or bad circumstances is not going to change them spiritually. It's like giving an addict a billion dollars. It's not going to matter it you take an addict out of a bad environment; give him or her a life of luxury if there is not going to be a spiritual change...otherwise it is only going to fuel their addiction.
Doesn't it seem impossible at this point that 100% of humanity is going to be on the same page spiritually? Some people are not spiritual at all, they are about what's on Earth and that's it. Others are spiritual without worshipping a ? , and some have to be spiritual and religious or just religious.
There are so many viewpoints out there, with so many different religions that the Bible ? has been unable to annihilate. So with all the competition your ? has to deal with, does it really make sense for it to not really do anything? Otherwise, it may be too late for people to be on the same path spiritually.
That is the point though...that 100% of mankind are spiritual "addicts" and apart from ? , we will continue to be. One group that comes close to seeing there is a spiritual element to their condition are the "Anonymous" group. They understand their inability to manage under a particular vice and look to a higher power for strength. They just are loose as to who that higher power is (mainly to avoid conflict from religious groups).
If the issue is really about which religion beats out another, then mankind is really in trouble. There is no competition. It is about what is true and what is false spiritually. -
you do understand that me rolling with the horse and unicorn thing was just my answer to your analogy
My analogy is in the context of an imagined world
where evil is just as non-existent as unicorns.1. yes it is2. when christians say ? can do anything we don't mean he can do nonsense such as create round squares or do anything that is logically impossible
But Christians claim that ? can defy the rules of logic and physics all the time.
Why isn't he able to make anything possible? Isn't he the author of reality?
Or does ? necessarily follow rules that precede his existence?you cannot have lack of ability to do evil and also have freewill
I'm not convinced.remember evil is a judgement on an action ( action here also includes thought) so if i am unable to make a judgement on your freewill actions that runs contrary to your judgement of said action then i don't have freewill. if i lack the ability to make that judgement then that would mean my will and your will would be the same.
If you are going to create more than one human with freewill THEN you have to give them the ability to do evil in other words you have to give them the ability to judge actions as being either good or evil deny them this and you don't have freewill you have one will
therefore creating a humanity without the ability to conceive of evil is also logically impossible
Remember that in your world view, evil is not a judgment on our part.
To you, evil is not relative;
evil is intrinsic in certain things.
The Abrahamic religions teach a moral absolutism.
So if ? decides what is evil,
Why even create it?
The world you think is imagined is not imagined it is real that is what i am saying and ? by his very existence prevents anything that is logically inconsistent from being created there cannot be round squares the same way there cannot be anything before ? the same way there cannot be freewill without the possibility of evil.
? does not create evil, ? can however create calamity which is different thing from evil. Man creates evil, evil being defined as ANY state of being that is contrary to ? 's character.
you can reject logic all you want i don't really get into these discussions to convince anybody of anything i only want to explain if you reject i then that's on you, i've done my part.
No, a world without evil is imagined;
a world without unicorns is real.
You keep saying a world without evil
Is illogical and thus,
Something ? cannot do, yet you haven't shown how.
A square circle is illogical because a square
By definition cannot be a circle.
Theological concepts of good vs evil
Are not the same. In fact,
According to Christian theology, ? will eventually
Eliminate evil and, supposedly, there will be
A world without evil. So your faith admits this is something
? can indeed do.
If ? created everything, he had to
Create evil, otherwise he is not the
Creator of all things. If he didn't create evil,
It's likely he didn't create good, at least
According to your theology.
Calamity is the creation of suffering and destruction.
Sounds pretty evil to me.
I'm not necessarily trying to convince
You either. I've been around long enough
For y'all to know that this is just fun for me.
I like to debate philosophy. It is
What it is. It'd be pathetic if we were all atheists,
All pantheists, deists or all Muslims, Buddhists, or Christians.
Debate is about developing and strengthening our
Understanding, not only of each other
But ourselves.
-
Ajackson17 wrote: »The_Jackal wrote: »Ajackson17 wrote: »I want to say something.
Debating belief after belief is kinda of ? . I can't destroy your belief with another belief and convert you without doing something physical in the first place. This is why a proper conversation regarding this is out of sync.
@kingblaze84 @zzombie show some scholarship to debate and use a tangible result to prove the case and study or otherwise this is philosophy versus philosophy. Because I can take some good stuff out of the bible and use it to my benefit and I take some things from King Blaze philosophy thoughts which he gained and use to good use.
That doesn't make sense in this concept because it is a philosophical discussion.
yeah....true carry on.... @The_Jackal this debate ain't going no where and it's the same ol'e after year after year from 2013.
Let's do something different.
@Ajackson17
What happened to Sixsicksins?
-
The_Jackal wrote: »Why would he intervene in human history, why would he limit human progress.
He's done both of these things in the bible repeatedly.
For example, Exodus and the Tower of Babel respectively.
Most Christians throughout history and even today
Believe that ? intervenes in and guides human affairs at least
To some degree.
-
you do understand that me rolling with the horse and unicorn thing was just my answer to your analogy
My analogy is in the context of an imagined world
where evil is just as non-existent as unicorns.1. yes it is2. when christians say ? can do anything we don't mean he can do nonsense such as create round squares or do anything that is logically impossible
But Christians claim that ? can defy the rules of logic and physics all the time.
Why isn't he able to make anything possible? Isn't he the author of reality?
Or does ? necessarily follow rules that precede his existence?you cannot have lack of ability to do evil and also have freewill
I'm not convinced.remember evil is a judgement on an action ( action here also includes thought) so if i am unable to make a judgement on your freewill actions that runs contrary to your judgement of said action then i don't have freewill. if i lack the ability to make that judgement then that would mean my will and your will would be the same.
If you are going to create more than one human with freewill THEN you have to give them the ability to do evil in other words you have to give them the ability to judge actions as being either good or evil deny them this and you don't have freewill you have one will
therefore creating a humanity without the ability to conceive of evil is also logically impossible
Remember that in your world view, evil is not a judgment on our part.
To you, evil is not relative;
evil is intrinsic in certain things.
The Abrahamic religions teach a moral absolutism.
So if ? decides what is evil,
Why even create it?
The world you think is imagined is not imagined it is real that is what i am saying and ? by his very existence prevents anything that is logically inconsistent from being created there cannot be round squares the same way there cannot be anything before ? the same way there cannot be freewill without the possibility of evil.
? does not create evil, ? can however create calamity which is different thing from evil. Man creates evil, evil being defined as ANY state of being that is contrary to ? 's character.
you can reject logic all you want i don't really get into these discussions to convince anybody of anything i only want to explain if you reject i then that's on you, i've done my part.
No, a world without evil is imagined;
a world without unicorns is real.
You keep saying a world without evil
Is illogical and thus,
Something ? cannot do, yet you haven't shown how.
A square circle is illogical because a square
By definition cannot be a circle.
Theological concepts of good vs evil
Are not the same. In fact,
According to Christian theology, ? will eventually
Eliminate evil and, supposedly, there will be
A world without evil. So your faith admits this is something
? can indeed do.
If ? created everything, he had to
Create evil, otherwise he is not the
Creator of all things. If he didn't create evil,
It's likely he didn't create good, at least
According to your theology.
Calamity is the creation of suffering and destruction.
Sounds pretty evil to me.
I'm not necessarily trying to convince
You either. I've been around long enough
For y'all to know that this is just fun for me.
I like to debate philosophy. It is
What it is. It'd be pathetic if we were all atheists,
All pantheists, deists or all Muslims, Buddhists, or Christians.
Debate is about developing and strengthening our
Understanding, not only of each other
But ourselves.
it's not that a world without evil is illogical it's a world with freewill that does not include the possibility of evil that is illogical.
The only people going to heaven which will be a world or state (whatever you want to consider it to be) that has no evi, will be people who of their own freewill reject all evil these people will be inline with the perspective/judgement of ? on all matters and therefore will have no evil. The possibility will exist but it will not come into being in heaven
? is the creator of all things BUT you misunderstand christian theology, ? does not create evil to begin with evil is not a "THING" IT'S just a judgement. calamity and destruction is not evil under all situations SO IF ? wants destruction to fall on you that's not evil because from a christian perspective only ? decides what is evil only he makes that judgement now if we are inline with ? we would have his perspective and our judgement on all actions will be inline with his.
only choosing to do good without the possibility to do evil means you don't have a freewill because you can only chose an infinite number of "goods".
