Calling all Christians!

[Captain Vegetable]

Wow...

That was quite long. And I have a responce for each and every one of your points, but I'll not argue with you.

I cannot change your mind or your heart. Only God can do that. So, ask Him to if you're really seeking the truth. If He is there, He'll let you know, and if He isn't there, you'll have wasted seconds of your time. Looks like a win win situation.

P.S. Your ideas of "perfection," "infinite," "predetermination," "free will," and the idea that morals exist independantly of their creators are all flawed.

I'm done here. I can gain no ground with you, as it is not my purpose. My purpose is to present my case and have you do with it as you will. Just because I think I'm correct, doesn't mean you have to also. And just because you think I could be wrong, doesn't mean I am.

All I ask is that you give it a shot. Ask Him for clarification. Ask Him to show you who He is and what the truth is. If it's all a bunch of bunk, you'll have lost seconds. And if He reveals Himself to you, you've gained everything.

[Dunlap]

Ah, I didn't want to get into this... Well here's my two cents before this gets too crazy.

Originally posted by Saint of Killers

You totally missed the point of what I said. I'm not claiming that god is not perfect because he created something imperfect. I'm claiming that god is imperfect because he didn't make things the way he wanted the first time. If he was perfect and omniscient, he would have no need to send down Christ from heaven. People's souls would have been let into heaven from the beginning. And yet god made a mistake, and had to correct that mistake. That is not the action of a perfect being. And if people were the one's who made the mistake, god would have forseen that and corrected it before it happened (or had no need to correct it) because he is perfect.

You mean to say that if God can see into our future, it is better for him to keep us from any adversity we were destined to be in, than to let us go through with it and learn from experience. I don't see where we grow from that. From what I understand, we are here to decide for ourselves what we choose to become, like God, or not. If we desire to leave God, he'll let us. That is the agency, he is not making us follow his plan. The cost is that some people will be lost, but that's what happens when you allow freedoms, I suppose, not everyone thinks the same. Does that make sense? I hope I said it well enough.

[LittleEric]

i was gonna clear UP MKU2000's post but i was beaten to it, so i'll talk about the afformentioned books of Thomas and Mary Mag.

first of all, its been argued for quite some time among biblical scholars and most feel that both are not true gospels. some people think they are, i subscribe to th argumant that they are not, here's why :

all of the other gospels and letters concerning Jesus written by an Apostle, Disciple, or Member of the 12, was either widely in circulation or atleast we have many notes, references, or mentions of them before the end of the 3rd century.

most of them were completed or nearing by the end of the 1st century, but basically all of the writings we now call "scripture" were in place by the time the Roman empire made Christianity the official religion.

then suddenly, out of nowhere, around the early 6th century, the books of thomas and mary mag show up, being never mentioned before in anyway way/shape or form. there are also as i understand it discrepencies in some of the terms and language used in the books, as they are out of context with the time period they are supposed to have been written in. they also refer to places by names that they didnt go by at the time of Jesus.

this is why i believe the books to be frauds.

as for the Saint/Captain Veggie debate .. i think im going to have to feel slightly with where Saint is coming from.

Cap'n i think a lot of what you said is valid, but you come off as kind of pretentious, and making any menion of "proof" is just plain wrong. no one can prove God exists/doesnt, and no one can "prove" any miraculous feat in the bible, if it was possible, there'd be no debate.

there is nothing wrong with questioning your faith, it in the end will probly make you grow stronger, and there is nothing wrong with questioning someone elses faith, as Saint is doing. i think its healthy and people as tangible creatures like things to be proven, and he is requesting evidence to validate certain things in the Bible, which is great. i hope his search for questions leads him to answers.

unfortunately, like i said, if you're looking for forensic proof which is submissible in court, you might be dissapointed - as Christianity is a religion, and as such you find yourself going a lot of times on Faith, which is a hard thing to do.

Rezo is trying to use Human philosophy to dissprove Theological truths, for that reason and that reason alone his argumants are inherently flawed, though i will concede that the "God cant create something greater than himself, therefore is limited" thingy was neat, i havent heard that one before, but when did God say he couldnt create something greater than himself ? anyway im sure there is a better "answer", or more appropriately a "response", but ill have to ask one of the scholarly types next time im in church.

i dont have an answer to that right now, and i have no problem admitting it, course i could say you dont understand cause he's God, and there would be a lot of truth to it, but it gets us nowhere.

[rezo]

Just because I think I'm correct, doesn't mean you have to also. And just because you think I could be wrong, doesn't mean I am.

and this is why we're supposed to be talking about it. You said what I presented was flawed, and provided no explanation, which is a waste.
my posts are usually long. I'm not sure why, but sometimes, when I plan a post, and have to come back and actually post it a few hours later, they're shorter. Its all about having ideas being clear, who knows.

anyways

so I can respond to gongos.

with respect to the "robots"( and I have to open a new window with my old reply in it. . . seems this quick reply box has its own problems, " =\ " ), I will simply say that I considered them "creations" of man, as "man" is considered "creations" of god. I wasn't acknowledging any popular or current definition. I was simply repeating the term that was used in the previous example. I mean, my robots are attempting to create morals.

with respect to god's power:

Indeed, you would have to change "god can do anything", to "god can do anything that is possible", which is quite different.

the whole point of that section was to show god is limited by impossibility.

ie: god can do the impossible=false.suggesting that there are limits to what can be done, and god must work within these limits, instead of creating them. if there are flaws present in the question, they would exist also in any other self-negating properties related to god.as mentioned earlier: A."free-will/absolute predetermination", B."creating natural forms"(natural forms exist without being created. self-dependent. for instance, if god were to exist without being created(which is the requirement for existence to be possible) then god would be a natural form),C.creating something greater than himself . . . the point was, with respect to when it was originally mentioned, how could god be limited by impossibility in one respect, and not another. One impossible property A was applied to god, and if god existed outside of logic(a requirement?) so then could C be applied to god, just as easily as A was. As you were saying

so The answer is that God, by the definiton we set down in the first line would be able to create a creation greater than himself, and also by the definition we have of god, that he is the greatest, he would be greater than his creation. Logically weird ? oh yeah, but this is simply a situation were logic is limited in its use, by the very definition of god in the first line we are actually given the ability to go outside of logic.

if he could do the impossible, then he could create something greater than himself. but you also do not apply A to god. so substitute that for C with respect to what I was saying to Captain Vegetable. Primarily, that "God can do anything" is the wrong way to define it.Rather, you would have to define god as "god can do anything that is possible". As god would be limited by impossibility, just as everything else is. I'm sure I'm repeating this, which I do often, so bear with me, but , if someone believes the idea that "god can do anything" without any sort of restriction, they would not be able to limit him in anyways. But god was limited. And I used impossibility to show a connection to other limits that would apply to a god.


Perfection: What is the definition you're using, exactly(I use, without flaw)? you've said it is different that what I understand, and I agree, as correct seems to fit,however, instead of understanding correct and perfect as seperate, I am understanding correct and perfect as the same. So you'll have to give me that, at least.and "that" is the definition, in case there is some confusion. this reminds me of my views of humans. Which is to say, I don't believe, with respect to a standard(as opposed to other humans)that there are people who do a good job for instance. I believe that they either perfectly adhere to the standard, and are therefore "correct", or they do not, and no matter how small the deviation is between them and the standard, they are following it "incorrectly." Mind you, with respect to the standard , and not each other. Many can be seen as "good" comparatively. anyways, yeah, give me the definition of perfect.

to say that God bowling a 290 and declaring it perfect...wow again.

genuine astonishment? anyways, short response here. it is not to say that god bowled a 290, and therefore bowled a perfect game. It is to say that God attempted to bowl a 290, and did that perfectly. I would also say that if he attempted to bowl a 290, and instead scored a 300, he would have made a mistake somewhere. And I'm ignoring the "how did god even bowl?" section, its not related to the point, and really, if you would like another example, pick something for god to do. You can decide whatever it is, to avoid astonishment. Then, suppose that he is supposed to do it in sequence, multiple times. Then, suppose that he intends to do it correctly to any percentage that you find agreeable(even 100%, it doesn't matter), then, if he were to successfully meet intentions , he would have done so.

But you seem to understand this, though I fear I was misunderstood when you were responding to me, since you were explaining to me what I was attempting to explain. My point was, that any seemingly flawed action, could be seen as an intentional one. So that the universal response to "god did something wrong here" is "thats what god intended to do". To anything. The absurdity is present when(and I did not post this, but I alluded to it I think. . . here:

To the point where, god could very well voice his intentions, not meet them, and then you could say he intended to voice false intentions and not meet them.

I posted this after deciding that we would need god's intentions to be voiced in order to determine whether he made a mistake or not, but really, look at the quote. If someone intends to decieve, they are not making an error, with respect to their intentions.


" . . . "

[LittleEric]

yea Gongos - i wrote that reply in which i said i didnt know the answer to the creation greater then himself thing before reading your post above it, which explained it to my satisfaction. - thanks.

still a good way to impress girls at parties though.

[Nikorasu]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable


We all do, Brotherman.

And you're quite welcome.

Captain Vegetable.

when I argued with you on the virtues of joypad vs Mouse control in FPSs I did not realise that I would be agreeing with you whole heartedly on your beliefs about God.

at the moment I am living away from home without my Bible - so I think I'm off to buy another;-)

God bless you captain!

[arjue]

Rezo: You see, often when you argue against someone and completely blow them away, they won't stop ranting on about crap thats either plain stupid or you've already shot down, following with genius answers like "...nahhhh", or "....errrr". The arguement is worth nothing anymore, so you end it. Its sort of like euthinasia.

Isn't Perfection a flaw? its boring and restricting. if perfection is a flaw, and god can't be flawless, then god can't be perfect. Pefection, like Eutopia or complete hapiness, does not exist.

EDIT: bad grammar

[rezo]

ah, I understand what you're saying. I would say that when someone stops providing explanations, the argument is over,and it amounts to someone "losing" without admitting it.

and, with what you've said about perfection, attached to intent, isn't true.

for my example, lets make god. . . a wafflemaker. he intends to make waffles, and if entertaining you isn't an intention, it doesn't really matter if you're bored or not. Just that he makes the waffles perfectly.

[arjue]

hmmmmmm, you got me there. I'll keep thinking

I'd just like to say that my friends never like talking about stuff like this, so I don't get much practice

[Reno]

I'm totally impressed that this thread has gone on for this long and hasn't resulted in an all-out flame war, good job!