To those who believe in a kind and merciful ? ....why is the world so hostile to life?
Options
Comments
-
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?
hahahahaahaha lol words cannot describe the ether and humor of her I.C DEATH -
Lol.. What happened?
Last time I was here it was all good. -
Lol.. What happened?
Last time I was here it was all good.
she leaked the threesome video of a female poster and in return the girl leaked a video in which six is caming with a white boy and feeling on her ? and playing with her ? .
six always said she wanted all whites dead so when this came out it exposed her as a fraud, she then started talking about getting a lawyer and claimed she took that video when she was 17, then somebody else exposed her twitter page and what school she went to and all that ? . It was an epic roasting , that thread was hilarious
since then she has stopped posting -
Lol.. What happened?
Last time I was here it was all good.
she leaked the threesome video of a female poster and in return the girl leaked a video in which six is caming with a white boy and feeling on her ? and playing with her ? .
six always said she wanted all whites dead so when this came out it exposed her as a fraud, she then started talking about getting a lawyer and claimed she took that video when she was 17, then somebody else exposed her twitter page and what school she went to and all that ? . It was an epic roasting , that thread was hilarious
since then she has stopped posting
I miss her sexy ass, she probably busting open for a young white male with her perm hair smfh. -
Damn. Is the thread still around?
-
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.
Yeah that's the funny thing, Christians love to say "? doesn't intervene", and yet the Bible ? claims to have drowned the world, destroyed several cities, and even commands humans to wipe out whole towns and villages at times. And in the cases of Jesus, performing "miracles", healing leprosy and whatever else.
And the ironic thing about his post is that if the Bible is correct (which it isn't), the Bible ? has already limited human progress because natural disasters like the Zika virus is wasting the potential of so many people around the world. Along with other viruses and parasites that obviously limit human progress. The life expectancy in some nations is shockingly low because of many of these things.
-
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.
How so? I mean, you tried to explain it once before but
Through moral relativism, which contradicts the
Moral absolutism of Christian theology.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.
If good and evil are absolutes,
? had the choice to create a world without those things
He deems evil. Humans would retain their free will
In such a world. It would be like the biblical heaven
After ? restores the world.The possibility will exist but it will not come into being in heaven
If there's 100% certainty that
Evil will not come into being,
There is no possibility.? 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.
If ? decides what is evil,
And ? is the author of all things,
? must have created evil. Otherwise,
He isn't the creator of all things.
A thing does not have to be a physical, spacial entity.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".
If one retains their freedom of choice, they have free will.
Right now, I can only choose between an infinite number
Of possible things. Since I can't choose to do an imagined
Thing that is impossible by the nature of my "design",
According to your logic, I don't have free will.
Evil itself could have been one more out of many
Impossible things we as mortal men
Cannot do already. Why then, would we not have free will
When now it is assumed we do? -
alissowack wrote: »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.
I believe in a higher power of some kind, I just wonder sometimes if that higher power is dead, has lost power, or is maybe tied up or worse by some competing powers. Maybe our ? was just an advanced alien and died due to violence from another ? or force. The Hindu books are filled with "gods" using nuclear weapons and violence against other higher beings.
Now as you see, there is no clear evidence which ? or religion is the correct one. Or which spiritual path is the correct one. The reason for that? The gods have abandoned Earth almost completely. We can't see any of them, and religious books don't prove ? . This is why proof is needed, until then, people will have thousands and thousands of different ways of reaching happiness or spiritual fulfillment.
-
Brazil to the world: Humans are in a losing battle against the Zika virus and the mosquito
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_ZIKA_VIRUS_BRAZIL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-01-26-08-21-36
RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) -- Brazil's health minister says the country will mobilize some 220,000 troops to battle the mosquito blamed for spreading a virus suspected of causing birth defects, but he also was quoted Tuesday as saying the battle already is being lost.
-
-
kingblaze84 wrote: »alissowack wrote: »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.
I believe in a higher power of some kind, I just wonder sometimes if that higher power is dead, has lost power, or is maybe tied up or worse by some competing powers. Maybe our ? was just an advanced alien and died due to violence from another ? or force. The Hindu books are filled with "gods" using nuclear weapons and violence against other higher beings.
Now as you see, there is no clear evidence which ? or religion is the correct one. Or which spiritual path is the correct one. The reason for that? The gods have abandoned Earth almost completely. We can't see any of them, and religious books don't prove ? . This is why proof is needed, until then, people will have thousands and thousands of different ways of reaching happiness or spiritual fulfillment.
It was never in my hands to begin with, but I see that this road has to end. Maybe you do need to see something "miraculous" to consider...who knows. But my hope is that you are given the insight to see past the flash on into the heart of the matter; that your confirmation leads you forward like Thomas and not away like Judas. Take care. -
Ajackson17 wrote: »
The video is both right and wrong ? has multiple plans when you pray if you pray for what you want chances are you won't get it because if could not be in his plans. if you pray for what ? wants for you you will get it
Prayer exist to align yourself with the will of ? not so that you can get goodies.basically ? knows everything possible outcome so when we willingly do want he wants we get one of his potential intended outcome. When we don't do what he wants we also get one of his outcomes but it's not really the one he intended. We get the consequences of our freewill. -
Also prayer moving mountains is a metaphor for nation. Prayer moves nations the bible is not saying prayer literally moves mountains
-
Also prayer moving mountains is a metaphor for nation. Prayer moves nations the bible is not saying prayer literally moves mountains
Cool, now he should have a good idea what ya'll talking about since it's visual as well and no more discussion. -
The tenants in Christianity are pretty easy to understand.
-
@alissowack
The irony of what you said is that I actually have experienced miracles in my lifetime. From a near death experience to other situations. But yeah who knows, maybe a long lost ? will show the rest of the world a few miracles and make my question disappear. Time will tell!
Good talking to you though, take care. -
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.
How so? I mean, you tried to explain it once before but
Through moral relativism, which contradicts the
Moral absolutism of Christian theology.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.
If good and evil are absolutes,
? had the choice to create a world without those things
He deems evil. Humans would retain their free will
In such a world. It would be like the biblical heaven
After ? restores the world.The possibility will exist but it will not come into being in heaven
If there's 100% certainty that
Evil will not come into being,
There is no possibility.? 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.
If ? decides what is evil,
And ? is the author of all things,
? must have created evil. Otherwise,
He isn't the creator of all things.
A thing does not have to be a physical, spacial entity.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".
If one retains their freedom of choice, they have free will.
Right now, I can only choose between an infinite number
Of possible things. Since I can't choose to do an imagined
Thing that is impossible by the nature of my "design",
According to your logic, I don't have free will.
Evil itself could have been one more out of many
Impossible things we as mortal men
Cannot do already. Why then, would we not have free will
When now it is assumed we do?
? is the author of all things but evil is not a thing it's not something that he created because it's literally not a thing. A thing does actually have to be physical or it has to describe something physical or some substance or form of matter or some kind of action
? could have created a world without the possibility of evil but he could not have also made a world with freewill BECAUSE implicit in human freewill is the the ability to choose to do or think the opposite
those who make it to heaven we will still have freewill that will not change, there is a possibility that i can die of a heart attack by friday if i survive till sunday that does not negate the existence of the possibility of me dying on friday. I still could have died
the bold would not work because of the multiplicity of freewills, all intelligent entities have freewill including ? .
if you can judge the actions of others to be good and i judge it to be evil then freewill pertaining to judgement on human actions exists. freedom of choice exists. now if ? made us without this ability to judge then we would not be sentient, now to be sentient means you have the power to experience things subjectively and have the reason to make a judgement on these experiences. The ability to decide right from wrong and think about it is what makes us different from animals. If ? did not give us this ability it would defeat the whole purpose for our being.
Now if ? chose not to judge then that would make no sense considering that he's omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, omnipresent and can do all things possible for him. ? has to judge because of the qualities i listed it would be logically impossible for him not to judge. The only way what you propose works is if there is and can only be one judgement on any action and the bible teaches that men can judge one way and ? judge another way.
IN OTHER words what you want would only work if ? had not freewill or mankind was not sentient.
-
? could have created a world without the possibility of evil but he could not have also made a world with freewill BECAUSE implicit in human freewill is the the ability to choose to do or think the opposite
if you can judge the actions of others to be good and i judge it to be evil then freewill pertaining to judgement on human actions exists. freedom of choice exists. now if ? made us without this ability to judge then we would not be sentient, now to be sentient means you have the power to experience things subjectively and have the reason to make a judgement on these experiences. The ability to decide right from wrong and think about it is what makes us different from animals. If ? did not give us this ability it would defeat the whole purpose for our being.
The only way what you propose works is if there is and can only be one judgement on any action and the bible teaches that men can judge one way and ? judge another way.
Sure, we can make our own decisions, but that doesn't mean
Our judgements are correct.
Christian theology says ? decides what is right and wrong,
Not human beings. So there would ultimately be only one judgment.
We may judge something as more or less good
And relative to the situation,
But in ultimate truth, all things would be equally good in ? 's eyes.
In a world without evil, all things would be intrinsically good
And suffering would not exist.
Like I said,
? could have made evil impossible for us to commit,
Just as some things are already impossible for us now.
Sentience only refers to the ability to feel
And perceive. Non human animals are sentient.there is a possibility that i can die of a heart attack by friday if i survive till sunday that does not negate the existence of the possibility of me dying on friday. I still could have died
Here, you said IF you survive.
In speaking of heaven, you said evil WILL NOT come into being.
In the former, there is uncertainty, in the latter, the is certainty.
If there is true possibility for evil to arise in heaven
After ? has defeated Satan and restored the world,
Then you would say evil MAY come into being.
And if you said that, I'd have to ask you how that's even possible
Given the context.? is the author of all things but evil is not a thing it's not something that he created because it's literally not a thing. A thing does actually have to be physical or it has to describe something physical or some substance or form of matter or some kind of action
Things like "Love" and " art" are conceptual things.
Colors and numbers are concepts.
Evil is the same. It's a thing, though. Evil can be either a noun
Or an adjective. In any case,
Either ? did or did not create it.the bold would not work because of the multiplicity of freewills, all intelligent entities have freewill including ? .
There would be only one will because ? isomnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, omnipresent
And if ? is omniscient,
He knew every detail of every event and every thing in the universe
Before he created it. If ? is omnipotent,
He had the ability to change anything to his liking before
He created the universe.
That means, if ? created the universe, he created
A universe that he wanted to create. That means that everything that
Ever happened is ? 's will and no one else's.
That means he willed even this conversation into being
And that everything you and I say is exactly what he wanted us to say,
Down to the last punctuation in this sentence. -
? could have created a world without the possibility of evil but he could not have also made a world with freewill BECAUSE implicit in human freewill is the the ability to choose to do or think the opposite
if you can judge the actions of others to be good and i judge it to be evil then freewill pertaining to judgement on human actions exists. freedom of choice exists. now if ? made us without this ability to judge then we would not be sentient, now to be sentient means you have the power to experience things subjectively and have the reason to make a judgement on these experiences. The ability to decide right from wrong and think about it is what makes us different from animals. If ? did not give us this ability it would defeat the whole purpose for our being.
The only way what you propose works is if there is and can only be one judgement on any action and the bible teaches that men can judge one way and ? judge another way.
Sure, we can make our own decisions, but that doesn't mean
Our judgements are correct.
Christian theology says ? decides what is right and wrong,
Not human beings. So there would ultimately be only one judgment.
We may judge something as more or less good
And relative to the situation,
But in ultimate truth, all things would be equally good in ? 's eyes.
In a world without evil, all things would be intrinsically good
And suffering would not exist.
Like I said,
? could have made evil impossible for us to commit,
Just as some things are already impossible for us now.
Sentience only refers to the ability to feel
And perceive. Non human animals are sentient.there is a possibility that i can die of a heart attack by friday if i survive till sunday that does not negate the existence of the possibility of me dying on friday. I still could have died
Here, you said IF you survive.
In speaking of heaven, you said evil WILL NOT come into being.
In the former, there is uncertainty, in the latter, the is certainty.
If there is true possibility for evil to arise in heaven
After ? has defeated Satan and restored the world,
Then you would say evil MAY come into being.
And if you said that, I'd have to ask you how that's even possible
Given the context.? is the author of all things but evil is not a thing it's not something that he created because it's literally not a thing. A thing does actually have to be physical or it has to describe something physical or some substance or form of matter or some kind of action
Things like "Love" and " art" are conceptual things.
Colors and numbers are concepts.
Evil is the same. It's a thing, though. Evil can be either a noun
Or an adjective. In any case,
Either ? did or did not create it.the bold would not work because of the multiplicity of freewills, all intelligent entities have freewill including ? .
There would be only one will because ? isomnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, omnipresent
And if ? is omniscient,
He knew every detail of every event and every thing in the universe
Before he created it. If ? is omnipotent,
He had the ability to change anything to his liking before
He created the universe.
That means, if ? created the universe, he created
A universe that he wanted to create. That means that everything that
Ever happened is ? 's will and no one else's.
That means he willed even this conversation into being
And that everything you and I say is exactly what he wanted us to say,
Down to the last punctuation in this sentence.
CHRISTIAN theology does say ? decides what is ultimately right or wrong BUT IT also says that man has freewill and his judgements are also part of creation, they are the creation of man. You cannot cherry pick which parts of christians theology you want to just to make your argument because all aspects of it work together. That includes the attributes of ? , being omnipotent and also being omni-benevolent which means ? would not just change reality in any matter he likes because being all good he's not going to violate the will of other freewill creatures.
? being omiscient just means he know everything or every possibility not that he prevents all possibilities from coming into reality. All gods attributes work together in a certain order starting with his all goodness
if you say that there would be only one will then that contradicts the bible because it teaches that man has his own will AND the allowance of this is a result of ? 's omni-benevolence. In other words WHAT I AM trying to say is that ? can only do things according to his nature. ? , for example cannot lie because it's literally impossible for him to do so it's not in his nature, the same way he cannot create freewill creatures without giving them power to disobey him (that disobediance is evil) If he was to do that it would violate part of his nature and his purpose for making man. since there exists more than one freewill entity EVERYTHING being good is ? 's eyes would also violate his omni-benevolence and would therefore be logically impossible because he has to judge it's part of his nature
Non-human animals are not sentient in the way humans are in my previous post i put Human freewill in bold for that very reason. You operate under a different concept of consists of sentience. You also say that colors and numbers are concepts we disagree colors and especially numbers have real physical substance while true concepts like love and art depend on sentient judgement.
Let me make thing clearer for you because you seem to have misunderstood me about heaven. when ? restores the earth and jesus rules for 1000 years, this will be "heaven on earth" but satan would not be dead just locked away so evil in the "universe" will still exists at this time in some form but jesus will rule with and iron first.
After the great white THRONE judgement i have always understood that reality will change in some unknown way because it says both heaven and earth will pass away at this point all beats are off as far as i understand it so no one can tell you what this heaven will be like in any detail. -
? could have created a world without the possibility of evil but he could not have also made a world with freewill BECAUSE implicit in human freewill is the the ability to choose to do or think the opposite
if you can judge the actions of others to be good and i judge it to be evil then freewill pertaining to judgement on human actions exists. freedom of choice exists. now if ? made us without this ability to judge then we would not be sentient, now to be sentient means you have the power to experience things subjectively and have the reason to make a judgement on these experiences. The ability to decide right from wrong and think about it is what makes us different from animals. If ? did not give us this ability it would defeat the whole purpose for our being.
The only way what you propose works is if there is and can only be one judgement on any action and the bible teaches that men can judge one way and ? judge another way.
Sure, we can make our own decisions, but that doesn't mean
Our judgements are correct.
Christian theology says ? decides what is right and wrong,
Not human beings. So there would ultimately be only one judgment.
We may judge something as more or less good
And relative to the situation,
But in ultimate truth, all things would be equally good in ? 's eyes.
In a world without evil, all things would be intrinsically good
And suffering would not exist.
Like I said,
? could have made evil impossible for us to commit,
Just as some things are already impossible for us now.
Sentience only refers to the ability to feel
And perceive. Non human animals are sentient.there is a possibility that i can die of a heart attack by friday if i survive till sunday that does not negate the existence of the possibility of me dying on friday. I still could have died
Here, you said IF you survive.
In speaking of heaven, you said evil WILL NOT come into being.
In the former, there is uncertainty, in the latter, the is certainty.
If there is true possibility for evil to arise in heaven
After ? has defeated Satan and restored the world,
Then you would say evil MAY come into being.
And if you said that, I'd have to ask you how that's even possible
Given the context.? is the author of all things but evil is not a thing it's not something that he created because it's literally not a thing. A thing does actually have to be physical or it has to describe something physical or some substance or form of matter or some kind of action
Things like "Love" and " art" are conceptual things.
Colors and numbers are concepts.
Evil is the same. It's a thing, though. Evil can be either a noun
Or an adjective. In any case,
Either ? did or did not create it.the bold would not work because of the multiplicity of freewills, all intelligent entities have freewill including ? .
There would be only one will because ? isomnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, omnipresent
And if ? is omniscient,
He knew every detail of every event and every thing in the universe
Before he created it. If ? is omnipotent,
He had the ability to change anything to his liking before
He created the universe.
That means, if ? created the universe, he created
A universe that he wanted to create. That means that everything that
Ever happened is ? 's will and no one else's.
That means he willed even this conversation into being
And that everything you and I say is exactly what he wanted us to say,
Down to the last punctuation in this sentence.
So in essence, the Bible ? wants to paralyze little babies and shrink their heads on purpose with viruses. And make them ? on top of that lol......I knew the Bible ? was a sick ? . -
CHRISTIAN theology does say ? decides what is ultimately right or wrong BUT IT also says that man has freewill and his judgements are also part of creation, they are the creation of man.
The attributes of ? , which you've already listed,
Negate this idea. I've explained how.That includes the attributes of ? , being omnipotent and also being omni-benevolent which means ? would not just change reality in any matter he likes because being all good he's not going to violate the will of other freewill creatures.
? being omiscient just means he know everything or every possibility not that he prevents all possibilities from coming into reality. All gods attributes work together in a certain order starting with his all goodness
Being omniscient means he knew all
Before creating it. He knows the outcome(s)
Of his actions before acting. If he did create the universe,
That means everything that happened and will happen
Is according to his will. Look up the definition of the word "Deliberate".
I'm not saying he prevented or changed anything.
I'm saying our reality is his will, if he created our reality.
Ephesians 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own willIn other words WHAT I AM trying to say is that ? can only do things according to his nature. ? , for example cannot lie because it's literally impossible for him to do so it's not in his nature, the same way he cannot create freewill creatures without giving them power to disobey him
Then he doesn't have free will.
If he cannot lie or commit acts of evil,
It is not possible for him to have free will,
According to your logic.Non-human animals are not sentient in the way humans are in my previous post i put Human freewill in bold for that very reason. You operate under a different concept of consists of sentience. You also say that colors and numbers are concepts we disagree colors and especially numbers have real physical substance while true concepts like love and art depend on sentient judgement.
I'm not going to reply to this
Because doing so would create a whole new series
Of arguments.Let me make thing clearer for you because you seem to have misunderstood me about heaven. when ? restores the earth and jesus rules for 1000 years, this will be "heaven on earth" but satan would not be dead just locked away so evil in the "universe" will still exists at this time in some form but jesus will rule with and iron first.
After the great white THRONE judgement i have always understood that reality will change in some unknown way because it says both heaven and earth will pass away at this point all beats are off as far as i understand it so no one can tell you what this heaven will be like in any detail.
<<<< That doesn't answer
This >>>>you said IF you survive.
In speaking of heaven, you said evil WILL NOT come into being.
In the former, there is uncertainty, in the latter, the is certainty.
If there is true possibility for evil to arise in heaven
After ? has defeated Satan and restored the world,
Then you would say evil MAY come into being.
And if you said that, I'd have to ask you how that's even possible
Given the context. -
CHRISTIAN theology does say ? decides what is ultimately right or wrong BUT IT also says that man has freewill and his judgements are also part of creation, they are the creation of man.
The attributes of ? , which you've already listed,
Negate this idea. I've explained how.That includes the attributes of ? , being omnipotent and also being omni-benevolent which means ? would not just change reality in any matter he likes because being all good he's not going to violate the will of other freewill creatures.
? being omiscient just means he know everything or every possibility not that he prevents all possibilities from coming into reality. All gods attributes work together in a certain order starting with his all goodness
Being omniscient means he knew all
Before creating it. He knows the outcome(s)
Of his actions before acting. If he did create the universe,
That means everything that happened and will happen
Is according to his will. Look up the definition of the word "Deliberate".
I'm not saying he prevented or changed anything.
I'm saying our reality is his will, if he created our reality.
Ephesians 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own willIn other words WHAT I AM trying to say is that ? can only do things according to his nature. ? , for example cannot lie because it's literally impossible for him to do so it's not in his nature, the same way he cannot create freewill creatures without giving them power to disobey him
Then he doesn't have free will.
If he cannot lie or commit acts of evil,
It is not possible for him to have free will,
According to your logic.Non-human animals are not sentient in the way humans are in my previous post i put Human freewill in bold for that very reason. You operate under a different concept of consists of sentience. You also say that colors and numbers are concepts we disagree colors and especially numbers have real physical substance while true concepts like love and art depend on sentient judgement.
I'm not going to reply to this
Because doing so would create a whole new series
Of arguments.Let me make thing clearer for you because you seem to have misunderstood me about heaven. when ? restores the earth and jesus rules for 1000 years, this will be "heaven on earth" but satan would not be dead just locked away so evil in the "universe" will still exists at this time in some form but jesus will rule with and iron first.
After the great white THRONE judgement i have always understood that reality will change in some unknown way because it says both heaven and earth will pass away at this point all beats are off as far as i understand it so no one can tell you what this heaven will be like in any detail.
<<<< That doesn't answer
This >>>>you said IF you survive.
In speaking of heaven, you said evil WILL NOT come into being.
In the former, there is uncertainty, in the latter, the is certainty.
If there is true possibility for evil to arise in heaven
After ? has defeated Satan and restored the world,
Then you would say evil MAY come into being.
And if you said that, I'd have to ask you how that's even possible
Given the context.
the attributes of ? and his purpose towards humanity do not negate the freewill of man they actually support it, you are leaving out the central attribute of ? ,his all goodness. i am not convince by your explanation of against this.
? KNOW ALL outcomes but he knows them as possibility not as reality. ? LETS us chose which future we bring into reality but he knows all possible futures, in other words the future is open and we have a strong influence on which one will be.
ACCORDING TO MY LOGIC, ? has freewill but because of his Omni-benevolence his will has to be in line with his nature. Just like our freewill cannot go beyond our design, meaning we cannot fly just because we will it, ? in turn cannot do anything that would violate his very nature. which is why ? cannot lie. ALL his attributes are informed by his Omni-benevolence.
You are using the bible to justify everything in reality being gods will but the bible says that ? changes his mind. BUT if ? knows the future IN THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED it then THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG. ? changes his mind so the future and all of reality cannot be 100% set and not 100% a creation of his will. Now ? can because of one of his other attributes inflict his will onto man but this is done within the scope of his benevolence. Which is part of the reason why we pray, i can give you several instances from the bible where ? changes his mind as a result of human prayer. You sound like a Calvinist now.
As for my previous statement on heaven i was trying to clear up what i said up for you to understand
there will be "heaven on earth" aka when jesus rules for 1000 years and then there will be "heaven" after the great white throne judgement in the former evil will still exist in some form and will be actualized when satan is released from his cage. In the latter, i don't believe anyone can say what will be because the bible says heaven and earth will pass away. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW??? AND IN any case something not being actualized does not negate the possibility of it so the possibilty of evil can still exist even if no one does it. -
the attributes of ? and his purpose towards humanity do not negate the freewill of man they actually support it, you are leaving out the central attribute of ? ,his all goodness. i am not convince by your explanation of against this.
His omnibenevolence is irrelevant to the argument.? KNOW ALL outcomes but he knows them as possibility not as reality. ? LETS us chose which future we bring into reality but he knows all possible futures, in other words the future is open and we have a strong influence on which one will be.
Then time is greater than ? ,
which doesn't make sense because ? created time..
Or is that wrong?ACCORDING TO MY LOGIC, ? has freewill but because of his Omni-benevolence his will has to be in line with his nature. Just like our freewill cannot go beyond our design, meaning we cannot fly just because we will it, ? in turn cannot do anything that would violate his very nature. which is why ? cannot lie. ALL his attributes are informed by his Omni-benevolence.
Then ? is confined by his nature
Just as we are confined by ours.
My question, then, is how does he retain his free will
In such a situation? If we weren't able to commit evil
Because of our nature,
We would be in the same boat.You are using the bible to justify everything in reality being gods will but the bible says that ? changes his mind. BUT if ? knows the future IN THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED it then THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG. ? changes his mind so the future and all of reality cannot be 100% set and not 100% a creation of his will. Now ? can because of one of his other attributes inflict his will onto man but this is done within the scope of his benevolence. Which is part of the reason why we pray, i can give you several instances from the bible where ? changes his mind as a result of human prayer. You sound like a Calvinist now.
The Bible ? is an amalgamation
Of various ideas from various people.
So those ideas are bound to conflict at some point.
Nevertheless, I'm going by the traditional interpretation
Of what and who ? is.
Romans 8:28-29
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love ? , to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Acts 2:23
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of ? , ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
So obviously ? has foreknowledge of all things,
Which makes sense because he is
The creator of all things. Free will, however,
Doesn't make sense given ? 's omniscience.As for my previous statement on heaven i was trying to clear up what i said up for you to understand there will be "heaven on earth" aka when jesus rules for 1000 years and then there will be "heaven" after the great white throne judgement in the former evil will still exist in some form and will be actualized when satan is released from his cage. In the latter, i don't believe anyone can say what will be because the bible says heaven and earth will pass away. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW??? AND IN any case something not being actualized does not negate the possibility of it so the possibilty of evil can still exist even if no one does it.
All I'm saying is that your original response, here >>>The possibility will exist but it will not come into being in heaven.
Doesn't line up with what you're saying now.
Your "explanation" seems like backpedaling.
What I'm saying to you is if there is certainty that evil will never arise,
Then there's no possibility.
If there is possibility, then the correct way to express that
Would be, "evil may arise" and "someone may commit evil".
The word "may" expresses possibility. If you don't agree that evil may arise,
Then you don't really believe there's possibility of it. -
the attributes of ? and his purpose towards humanity do not negate the freewill of man they actually support it, you are leaving out the central attribute of ? ,his all goodness. i am not convince by your explanation of against this.
His omnibenevolence is irrelevant to the argument.? KNOW ALL outcomes but he knows them as possibility not as reality. ? LETS us chose which future we bring into reality but he knows all possible futures, in other words the future is open and we have a strong influence on which one will be.
Then time is greater than ? ,
which doesn't make sense because ? created time..
Or is that wrong?ACCORDING TO MY LOGIC, ? has freewill but because of his Omni-benevolence his will has to be in line with his nature. Just like our freewill cannot go beyond our design, meaning we cannot fly just because we will it, ? in turn cannot do anything that would violate his very nature. which is why ? cannot lie. ALL his attributes are informed by his Omni-benevolence.
Then ? is confined by his nature
Just as we are confined by ours.
My question, then, is how does he retain his free will
In such a situation? If we weren't able to commit evil
Because of our nature,
We would be in the same boat.You are using the bible to justify everything in reality being gods will but the bible says that ? changes his mind. BUT if ? knows the future IN THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED it then THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG. ? changes his mind so the future and all of reality cannot be 100% set and not 100% a creation of his will. Now ? can because of one of his other attributes inflict his will onto man but this is done within the scope of his benevolence. Which is part of the reason why we pray, i can give you several instances from the bible where ? changes his mind as a result of human prayer. You sound like a Calvinist now.
The Bible ? is an amalgamation
Of various ideas from various people.
So those ideas are bound to conflict at some point.
Nevertheless, I'm going by the traditional interpretation
Of what and who ? is.
Romans 8:28-29
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love ? , to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Acts 2:23
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of ? , ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
So obviously ? has foreknowledge of all things,
Which makes sense because he is
The creator of all things. Free will, however,
Doesn't make sense given ? 's omniscience.As for my previous statement on heaven i was trying to clear up what i said up for you to understand there will be "heaven on earth" aka when jesus rules for 1000 years and then there will be "heaven" after the great white throne judgement in the former evil will still exist in some form and will be actualized when satan is released from his cage. In the latter, i don't believe anyone can say what will be because the bible says heaven and earth will pass away. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW??? AND IN any case something not being actualized does not negate the possibility of it so the possibilty of evil can still exist even if no one does it.
All I'm saying is that your original response, here >>>The possibility will exist but it will not come into being in heaven.
Doesn't line up with what you're saying now.
Your "explanation" seems like backpedaling.
What I'm saying to you is if there is certainty that evil will never arise,
Then there's no possibility.
If there is possibility, then the correct way to express that
Would be, "evil may arise" and "someone may commit evil".
The word "may" expresses possibility. If you don't agree that evil may arise,
Then you don't really believe there's possibility of it.
his omnibenevolence is not irrelevant to the argument it is central to everything in creation and to this thread, have you looked at the thread title???
free will as a morally defining concept that doesn't apply to ? . Free will as applied to moral CHOICES COMES down to the choice for good or evil. So to say that ? has the opportunity to choose against Himself would be a contradiction in the terms of his nature. It is logically impossible
In His act of creation ? gave His creations the ability to choose either for or against Him and that's when the concept of free will was introduced to the universe. ? is omnipotent, because He has power over all things. However, does that mean that He can go against another part of His nature??? NO. ? cannot go against his Perfect Goodness? because then ? would be contradicting Himself, and that is not possible in an all-perfect being. It's a meaningless contradiction, much like a square circle.
? being un-created does not have any authority that can judge over him. However being that we are created BEINGS, naturally what created us has the power to judge our actions BECAUSE ? has extensive knowledge about his creation he can judge our actions and in that judgement good or evil is defined. No, we cannot judge ? because we lack totally extensive knowledge about ? . see the book of job.
I feel that what you are really asking me is can ? judge all our actions as being good??? the answer is yes but only if we are free to choose and if our nature was such that we could only please ? then we would have no freewill and that would defeat the purpose we were created for. SO we literally cannot be in the same boat as ? because we were created therefore there will always be the will of ? and our will.
Time is the movement of matter through space ( a sequence of events) ? created space and matter thus he created time and is greater than time and all possible events in time because he exists in all possible realities. TIME is an allowance from ? therefore time cannot be greater than ? .
The ? of the bible is a spirit. john 4:24
? is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." There are many different christian traditions which one are you going by?? because Catholics have a different understanding about ? 's foreknowledge than Calvinist do. I think that you will find that most Christians don't believe that the foreknowledge of events creates those events which is the logical conclusion of your statement
READ romans 8:28 and acts carefully and put it in context with the rest of the bible
28 And we know that in all things ? works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those ? foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
obviously ? knows everyone before they are born but is everyone predestined to conform to the image of christ?? no because we know some people will be going to hell. so who do you think the apostle is taking about?? think about that and keep in mind Matt 7:22-23, 1 Corinthians 8:3,
just because something won't happen that does not negate the possibility of if happening and as long as there is a possibility to do evil for created creatures then it can be said that that creature has a freewill. "may arise" vs "will not arise" both terms are irrelevant to that point.
-
his omnibenevolence is not irrelevant to the argument it is central to everything in creation and to this thread, have you looked at the thread title???
This argument >>>And if ? is omniscient,
He knew every detail of every event and every thing in the universe
Before he created it. If ? is omnipotent,
He had the ability to change anything to his liking before
He created the universe.
That means, if ? created the universe, he created
A universe that he wanted to create. That means that everything that
Ever happened is ? 's will and no one else's.
https://youtu.be/XUhIvqWyrPM