Calling all Christians!

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by Nikorasu


Why thanks Captain. Reading your posts I can see I have a lot to learn still.

I must say I wish I had a fiancee for a bit of support sometimes.

At the risk of sounding like a nutter to the rest of the forum - I'll remember you in my prayers, and perhaps you could 'put in a word' for a nice christian laydee for me!

'Till we argue about games again.

I sure will "put in a good word for you."

And as I told Brotherman, we all have a lot to learn.

[Ichabod]

Gongos: I'm having a really hard time reading your post. Not to be a jerk or anything, but you really should put it into clear paragraphs instead of one big mass of words.

[Melf]

Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000


seriously dude, Jesus says that exact quote in the church approved Gospel of Luke as well, i let my girlfriend borrow my Students Life Bible, where i have highlighted numerous texts in both the Old and New Testament which basically make an ass out of Yahweh, God of the Jews, who seems more like a jealous and angry jerk than the creator of this universeand this is coming from a guy whos whole family is reborn Christians, my brother in law even runs his own Church...

I, for one, can't help but laugh when Christians criticize the Jews. That's like someone calling their mother a whore.

"Most Christians agree that the world, with time, degenerates. Morals have degenerated since 1611. Character has degenerated since 1611. Even our atmosphere has degenerated. Are we then to believe that education has gotten better? Only a worshiper of education could pretend to believe such a fairy tale. Education has degenerated along with the entire world system and could never produce a scholar equal to those of nearly four hundred years ago."

Come, come sir. A good bleeding will rid you of all those troublesome thoughts. Then we can put some modern educators on a boat and let them float right off the edge of the world!

What will they come up with next, that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Modern educators are so funny!

[rezo]

What is the definiton of this substance, you seem to assume from the outset that it must exist, but i ask you for where you beleive that it exists.

+

i would like to here more of this substance, and furthermore how it definitively removes God from the picture?

I may just end up repeating what I said in my last post to you, but I'll try.

the definition of a natural substance is "a substance with a self-dependent composition". x_X . . . hmm. . . which is to say, if X is a natural substance, "breaking down" X would result in the same amount of X, but seperated from each other. There would be no loss of X as a result of the activity.

"where you believe that it exists." <--- I'm not certain of what you mean here, so:

1. I believe that it is existence. If you find something that exists, anything, its existence is dependent on a natural form being the groundwork. With respect to science, I do not know if they have found it , and given it a term and such and such.


Why do I believe in such a thing? As it is, it is only theoretical yes, but. If we consider existence without a self-dependent form as the basis, you have nothing as the basis for existence. Amidst all of these compounds that make up our world, something must exist, that allows for these compounds to exist. given my definition of natural form, if we are to assume that there are no natural forms, I would ask how there could be existence at all. It would be existence dependent on nothing. Its a similar conclusion to the "who created existence" question. If there is a creator, the creator(who is there prior to creation) is what creation is dependent on. Likewise, if this creator exists naturally, then a creator is not a genuine requirement for existence, and from there, I would merely say existence is natural, as , by its very existence, the necessity for a creator would be removed. If we consider "creator" to be "creator of natural forms", as they. . .exist . . .without him, him being the proof. And I am sorry for repeating this over and over again. But if we consider the definition of creation that I have in place, that of a builder, or a custodian as you call it, then the being, amidst the natural forms, could still be a useful definition. So, God is removed as a being who is a necessary requirement for existence. Nothing can be responsible for the existence of natural forms, and so god cannot be responsible for their existence. More importantly, god was not responsible for their existence.

I'll throw out two things of my own:

1. how do you propose there can be existence without natural forms? if god is creating from nothing, he should still need to create natural forms, my reason being, if he is not creating natural forms, he is not genuinely creating. but I have given my explanation of why he cannot do that.

2. I forgot what it was going to be. x_X


_____

I actually see where you are going with this, You are saying that since God only can create using the existing Natural matter, he is not really a creator, but merely a custodian who assembles preexisting natural matter into what we call his creations.Not quite. as i still am unconvinced that these Natural form particles that God allegedly uses are actually real, So we are reduced to a faith contest, you have faith in the theoretical physics to eventually discover this indivisible particle,and i have faith that any construct of matter is created by god and thus is dependent on him for existence.

.But, I would seriously like to know if you have an explanation of how something can exist without an "indivisible particle" as a requirement.

With respect to your next section, regarding god and limits.
I need to remind you, that the only thing I have been attempting to limit god from, is absurdity. If you want to argue that "not being able to do the impossible" isn't a limit, because. . . it isn't even a consideration, I will agree. that is what I have gathered from here:

that is not so much a limitation as a self controlled variable over which he had complete control. So now god creates the universe with his substance as the underlying particle, to you this would be a limitation, but i ask you, arent limitations defined by alternatives?

given that an impossible action should not even be a possibility(and therefore, not an alternative), then, based on your definition, it would not be a limit.

But the basic substance of God has no alternative, it is made of the only substance that exists,and as such would not define an actual limitation of god so much as basic reality.

yes.

but this does not resolve your basic claim, in fact you are brobably chucking because it seems to play directly in it, as God is still using an uncreated substance, himself.

again. I wasn't chuckling, but was curious about what seemed like a lot of concessions.



but I'll have to cut your argument based on time off. Namely, I don't believe in the value of a relative time, or harmonic time in general. I brought it up, in part, because that was the sort of time that you mentioned in the post I was responding to, and I was attempting to show how and why I thought it was useless, and my proposed alternative to how we should look at time.

ie: as states, there is no relative time. In order to measure states, we must recognize them, and whether we see them as one way or not(whether, based on our measuring standard,we find the correct values for a certain state, or make an error), they still exist as independent values. I would go so far as to say that relative harmonic time values can be found and judged uniformly when considering their place in states.

I would like to make 3 more points about time:

1. time does not exist independently. "harmonic time" represents an independent value for time, but i went over, in my last post to you, how it was essentually useless. But, there can be no existence outside of "nothing". You are saying god exists outside of that which does not exist.(dependent existence is not existence at all, rather, it is referred to as existence for convenience, understand. what the dependency is on ultimately, is what exists.)

2. time, when considered as a measurement of existence is not variable. existence changes states. if ever we gain the ability, we can measure these changes. call these measurements time.

3. short bit on time - travel. lets say that an action is performed, and then, "time reverses" and the effects of that action are negated.

I say that, opposed to measuring in this manner

1. state 1
2. set of states(2-5) <-- performance of action
3. set of states(5-2) <-- representing the inverse of the action
4. state 1

we measure in this manner.

1. state 1
2. set of states(2-5) <-- performance of action.
3.set of states(6-9) <-- inverse of action
4.state 10 <-- equivalent to state 1, but not actually state 1.

the problem then becomes one of the same set of actions being repeated, but if state 1, and state 10, are merely similar(based on the responsible factor not being equal in them, and the reversal only being related to the action performed, and not the state in general) then we should have a situation that is remarkably similar to what is considered time travel, and is plausible, but is not actually travelling through time. This is how I would look at a god functioning "outside of time". I would consider that a misunderstanding. Instead, I would understand it as a god being capable of altering occurence in any possible manner, and likewise, being able to do things that we would ignorantly consider "time travel", when he would simply be providing for current states to be similar to old ones.I think you understand, so I'll cut off explanation there.


but anyways, I would like you to apply your association of god and time to my standard of states if possible. Existence outside of the states of existence, I'm not understanding how that could be.

but, your god, not being able to create natural forms, and not being able to travel "back"(or to previous states), only means that his work would be done in a different manner,not that they cannot be done.

a natural form merely "is" but,

if you wish to persue it further then we try to get into the origin of god's substance itsself,as i detailed in the past paragraph.

looks like this is an eventuality.

[Captain Vegetable]

Rezo, There is no such thing as an impossibility. "With God all things are possible." As such, nothing is impossible. And, according to Gongos' definition of a limitation requiring an alternitive, all things being possible isn't a limitation, as there is no alternative, because "with God all things are possible."



EDIT: Sorry Gongos. I couldn't resist.

[Hero]

If I had been on the comp enough this past week to follow the new pages that have sprouted up, maybe I'd say something insightful.

....

I'll just watch for now ^^U

[Nick]

Why, oh, why, did I not stay on this thread? Now it is going in all different directions with huge megaposts I don't have time to read thoroughly at work.

I gave it all a cursory read-through and noticed CV softened his position on predestination to more closely reflect the traditional Christian stance I was defending in the other thread. I take it the answer to my question about God damning people who had no choice in salvation is that He does not. He said we are either for Him or against Him, and I assume CV admits that it is our choice.

Well, is it really our choice? I mean, the only way to approach God is to love Him. I am not sure that I am capable of loving Him knowing what I do about Him. If I only paid lip service to God because I feared Him or His punishment, I would not be saved. Yet, how can I love a Creator Who makes us in His image and endows us with the greatest of all gifts - life, logic, and love - but damns us for using and enjoying them?

He says, "Study to shew thyself approved," but tells us our wisdom and righteousness are as filthy rags. He gives us the capacity to love our families, but expects us to be all right with His casting most of them into eternal suffering. Why? Because the love between humans is nothing before the Love of God. Well, so what? People still love people with all-consuming heart-wrenching passion. God's gonna just say that is all bullshit and we should forget about our moms and dads who he throws alive into a burning, unquenchable flame?

I don't give a damn about what God's standards of perfection are. I feel love. To me, that love is undiminished by anything the Bible says.

I do not care that God created love.

I do not care that God's love for us is greater than our love for ourselves.

I do not care that my mom is not up to God's standard for heaven.

Leave my family alone. If they offend You, Almighty Lord, leave them be. Do not resurrect the dead only to sentence them to a torturous, ongoing death.

I do not accept the fact that God dictates all morality and His mind is impenetrable, so we should just accept anything He does to us and praise Him for it.

That argument is all but an anachronism. It is the same argument Socrates used to defend his own execution: the State is my father, and I owe my very existence to it, so I submit to its right to take my life whenever and however it wishes.

There comes a point where you should use that mind, that reasoning God gave you, and use it to defend those you love. If my mom dies at 65 years of age, having never offended a living soul, having donated 5% of her time and money to charity, but not having God in her heart, why does she deserve to be dragged out of her grave and sentenced to unending, unyielding, UNFAIR punishment?!?

I DO NOT CARE IF GOD THINKS THAT IS FAIR. With all that is in me, I know it is not fair. And, with all that is in me, I will oppose that action. If our capacity is limited, then we should be judged commensurate with that capacity.

Since this discussion is about why Christianity does not make sense, that is what I am presenting. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS NOT THE ISSUE; THE ISSUE IS, IS GOD JUST? It is my contention that the Bible presents Him as unjust. And I will not worship a Being that tortures innocent people because they don't love Him. Maybe it makes sense to God, but God is putting our asses on the line, not His own.

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable

Because He is omnipotent, there are certain things He cannot do, as it goes against His nature which is omnipotent. However, this doesn't mean He is limited, as He defines what "omnipotent" is.

Likewise, He is perfect, and because He is perfect, there are certain things He cannot do. He cannot murder, as His character is that of perfection, and murdering is an imperfect act.

I chose this quote because it relates to what I was saying above. Don't give me any grief about selectively quoting you instead of facing the totality of your arguments. I picked this to fit into the points I was already making, since you bring up an interesting point there.

We are to respect God's nature and love Him completely for it even as He damns us for our natures, which were made in His image (or was Genesis simply talking looks)? If His nature is beyond our knowledge, how fair is it to destroy us for not loving Him?

Why do you love God?

[Captain Vegetable]

Nick, you seem mad at God, or in pain.
Do you admit He is there and are spiting Him because of frustration?
Pardon me for sounding like I'm patronizing you, but He loves you, and your family. Inspite of what you think the Bible says.

Why do I love God?

Because He gave His only Son for me.

Because if I confess His Son before other men, His Son, in spite of my sin being the reason for His death, will confess me before His Father. (this is what gets me the most)

Because the Holy Spirit in me leads me to love Him.

And look at what you have to do become one of His children! You don't have to live up to a standard! You don't have to change what you do or who you are, as He will do that for you. The absolute only thing you must do is accept His Son, Jesus Christ, as the pure and holy sacrifice for your sin.

You family that you love so fiercely? All they must do is accept Christ. That's it! There is no standard! God will never tell you that you're not good enough or that you missed the mark. Your mother will never be looked upon as though she is lacking in any way if she would come to know Jesus!

Why would you deny that? Why would you, knowing that nothing in your life has to change, refuse the grace and salvation that God gives freely?!

I know Christians that are drunkards, institutionalized (believe it or not), drug addicts, and a myriad of other types of dregs! God will take you as you are, you need do nothing.

All sins are forgivable! There is a single sin mentioned in the entire Bible that is unforgivable, and that is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. And even if you've done that, if you have Christ you will be saved!

Don't be angry at God for damning your family to Hell...be angry at your family that the only thing they had to do was believe in Christ and love Him and they would have been saved!

It's FREE! All you have to do is accept it.

Here, then, is my question for you:

Why don't you love God? Why, when it is as simple as accepting Christ as your pure and holy sacrifice, would you not come to Him?

[MrKasualUltra2000]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable


I hope this clears things up. Most of the information in the post comes from Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.

that book is a sad excuse for scientific research.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000


that book is a sad excuse for scientific research.

I wouldn't have arbitrarily posted that simply a christian wrote it.

I made sure to check up.

I'd do you good to check up on those claims as well.