Adventurer

Siggied

Probably, except that I can't understand how predestination would fit into everything I've learned and lived so far. It makes no sense in real life application to my own life, you know? You do carry a convincing argument though. Funnily enough, it carries some scary implications like: Adventurer can go indulge in [cabbage] on internet and it would be ok because it's foreordained, Adventurer can go talk [cabbage] to anybody he wants to because it's foreordained, and nobody could say anything because there is no right and wrong; it's all just tools by God to shape predestined believers. Infact, if I learned to accept your argument, I would just drop all my moral obligations to everybody, and live for a few things like: success (so stay good in school), doing what will benefit ME such as beating crud out of people I dislike, etc. I think that's why I can't accept your argument on the predestination stuff. ...and for the God thing: that's another one of the things we disagree on, and you already know that I think man simply veered off of a correct way of living, thus creating those things. I think my thread was supposed to assume that "God so loved the world that he sent his only son...". Meh, I just made the thread to try to clear up some confusions about Christianity.

Yesterday. I was forcing myself to run a cross country race as fast as I could while my hip was just killing me...and sweat was getting in my eyes.

If it can't go either way, then it's not a discussion. I'm not going to put up an argument about this: I'll just sum up what you've said as I've understood it just to make sure I read it right: Definition of true love: preordained attraction to God given to man by God Definition of right/wrong: only conceptual in real life; there really isn't a right/wrong. It only matters whether or not you're predestined for heaven. 1. God's omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) 2. Because of [1.], when God makes man, he does so knowing exactly what he will do; thus, man has no choice in the matter because God placed him somewhere knowing what will happen. 3. Because of [2.], whatever man does is meant to happen already, so it's not like he actually chooses anything; his actions just HAPPEN 4. Thus, man has no choice, and God breeds people into a certain type of believer to go to heaven while everybody else is simply used as tools to shape those believers into certain people. ... Consequentially: 5. Because of [1.], it doesn't matter what the Bible may mention of free will...God can lie/scam/etc. anybody into thinking that a free will exists and it won't matter because there is nothing that matters but what God wants to do in getting a certain breed of people into heaven. Correct? Oh, by the way, I think your idea is called Infralapsarianism, originating from John Calvin's teachings.

Hi miniclipper : Nice tutorial!! It's interesting to learn how people do those siggies. They're so eye-catching but seeminly complicated. 10/10

Yeah...I think we'll just have to call truce or something Paper. We're both convinced that we're right. I think mirrorforced was right about having to pretty much wait until we're dead to find out. We disagree on the fundamentals of Christianity, including John 3:16. Unless we can prove stuff like "Jesus really did come so that we could CHOOSE/Jesus came so that God could get predestined people in heaven", we won't get anywhere. I withdraw because of the above reason.

[hide=PaperClipsYaaaar] Fact 2, 3, + your conclusion is what I'm having problems with. What you seem to be implying is that the Bible contains false information because it contains the conflicting idea of choice that is not choice. The Bible does not contain false information. To summarize: Any statements in the bible about Choice must be seen as Illusionary Choice. Plain and simple. I have already given you several quotes. Here is the most general one: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth...O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" Also, the "hardened" quote does not refer to only the Pharaoh. It is phrased as to encompass all people. Which scholars are you talking about? According to the percentage I showed you, believers and scholars who ignore Predestination are in the minority. If you have no more arguments, you are welcome to admit so and withdraw. However, please do not disparage the discussion by calling it "fruitless" or "running in circles." [/hide] ...I was looking for the link to the percentage source. could you repost it please? The search feature is very frustrating to use. ...could you find me some more of the hardened heart examples? I want to see who's hearts were hardened. ...verse: Cite please. It's hard to find it without those references. Also, you've taken it out of context. Here's the context. I will highlight what you wrote, and highlight the stuff that makes it falsified in context. [hide=Romans 9]

Fact 2, 3, + your conclusion is what I'm having problems with. What you seem to be implying is that the Bible contains false information because it contains the conflicting idea of choice that is not choice. Also, Predestination is not so clearly defined in the Bible, and I'm not sure if you are correct about its usage. I learned that "God hardened his heart" was just a result of Pharaoh's own choosing to refuse, thus it was his choice. As a side note: I'm an amateur at arguments/discussions, and you may or may not be. If scholars haven't gotten to a definite conclusion yet, I don't see how I can prove much here. It's a waste of my homework time to keep up a fruitless discussion, ya know?

Software wasn't changed when I turned the computer and monitor off; the next time I turned them on, it was weird. Cords are connected nicely on both ends.

Oh, so it all hinges on the Bible...that's why this is going in circles. You know, I think I'll just withdraw. As of right now, there's nothing more I can say without going in another circle. However, I will point out an interesting thought that popped up in my head. Predestination vs Free will is all the difference between hard-wiring a rat to move through a maze in a certain way & knowing exactly what the rat will do but letting it do it on its own.

LCD, Dell. 16.

Guess what? We've just gone in circles at least 4 times over... -Adventurer's only words upon realizing this amusing situation Edit: What would you say that this whole argument of free will vs predestination hinges on? Whatever it is is making us go in circles. Wait a second...you're saying that "true love" is an ambivalent term that goes either way? Oh, and where did your first two quotes come out of? Wait a second...you're arguing that Predestination is right because it's real? Isn't that cyclical? ...and didn't we agree that % doesn't really matter for this discussion? ...and predestined choice is an oxymoron :wink:

Yup, it's 32 bit, true-color. Thanks anyways.

[hide=PaperClipsYaaaar] I agree. I agree. Here's the problem. The words "free will" don't belong in there. The sentence should read: "a decision originating from God to give love." Yes, both of our sentences make sense in terms of logic. However, in terms of Christianity, only my sentence makes sense, as the Bible writes of Predestination, not Free Will. Also, you forgot to give your definition of Predestination (#4 on my list). You still haven't given me any evidence why this isn't the God of Christianity. Let me say this one last time. I have never attempted to place my opinions in this thread. Like I said in my previous post, any personal reflections you make after reading my facts belong to you alone. ...you're the one who wanted to discuss it. The percentage is from the Central Intelligence Agency. I gave you the link. [/hide]4. Predestination - oops. Hmm, you know...I'm not quite sure of this yet. I've just been using your definition because you've introduced the idea/term. What I believe is that EVERYBODY is predestined (not controlled, but planned) to go to heaven, but people hold the choice to decline or accept. God doesn't force decisions. "a decision originating from God to give love." Ok, I'll make myself very, very clear about what problems I have with this statement. ("a decision originating from God to give love.") Love is a choice, therefore, it is voluntary and consciously chosen (as defined by me in my last post). Therefore, God absolutely cannot MAKE people love him, as that would mean that the people don't make the choice themselves. Your idea makes no sense with this definition of love, which you yourself used. See below statement for the problem with your argument's idea of love. Also, your term "true love", defined by your source, contradicts your own argument because it does not assume that Predestination is real, as you've noted in your comment ("Please note that the writer makes the mistake of thinking choice is free rather than illusionary. He has clearly not read the parts in the bible about Predestination.") Because of this, your sentence does NOT make sense logically. It cannot follow that God basically FORCES man to make a VOLUNTARY CHOICE, given that you're saying that man has no choice in the matter due to Predestination. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You have not addressed this hole in your argument yet, please do so promptly for the sake of this argument. I gave you verses about God for the issue of why Christian God doesn't equal the God you're talking about. Is that not enough? Well...let me just tell you the issue. Your God doesn't make sense (again, please address the hole in your argument (look at above paragraph)). Oh, I know you're not stating your opinion. I'm just making sure that you don't go on a "is Christianity right or wrong" tangent here, and that you're staying on topic. Don't take it as a criticism of you posting your opinion, because you haven't posted opinion. As for the percentage...I'm going to just drop it : Back to my English essay....

I dunno about this one man. It seems as though you're pulling out all the negative examples to make a biased argument. You really shouldn't judge everybody by a small number of people like that. (Also, those Christians would be like chided for being stupid.)

Hi. My monitor is acting up, and colors aren't displaying right. I'm not sure how to describe this...hmm... For one example, runescape.com's dark brown color scheme is showing up as like a dark cyan-green color. Thanks for any replies.

1. choice (noun?) - a choice is an option. There may be right/good and wrong/bad choices, neutral choices that lead to different consequences, etc. Simply put: options 2. free will - the ability to decide choices of one's own will. The person's will may be influenced, but not ultimately decided by outside forces such as learned prejudices, God's influence (not absolute control; influence), temptation, etc. 3. true love - a decision made of free will to give love (not sexual love for mating). Qualities of love defined by Bible: patient, kind, not envious, not boastful, not proud (like the haughty type of pride), not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered, doesn't keep track of wrongs. Summary of love as I use it - love is where you care for the wellbeing of someone. Thus, it is all of the above qualities. It isn't conditional like a contract either. Yeah. It was a few pages back that I tried to make a point out of this, but I think I was saying that this isn't the God of Christianity, which leads to two conclusions: God doesn't act like this, or Christianity's false. We're discussing the former, since this thread does assume that Christianity is true for the sake of discussing it. (This thread's not a "is Christianity right or wrong" thread. You can start your own thread for that if you want.) Ok. It is important for the topic's status, but does it actually apply to our discussion? It doesn't seem like it. (as an opinion on the side: I'm not so sure that the precentage is accurate, but I don't have any proof of that. Just an irrelevant thought) [hide=assassin] Your right, God and science are not mutually exclusive, but Christians don't just believe in a higher power do they? It's hard to outline explicitly what [raising a child in an objective manner] would involve, but I think I would let my child come to her own decisions about fairly deep philosophical questions such as the existence of God when she was old enough to weigh up all the arguments for and against. So we should all lie and pretend that fiction is true for the sake of short term happiness? I'm all for the magic of Christmas for children, but to pretend that LOTR for example is anything other than a work of fiction is plain dishonesty and will be more damaging to the child when they find out that it's not real. I wasn't particularly traumatised when I found out Santa wasn't real, none of my friends were either. Oh really? So when you read the Bible to children, or tell children to read the Bible, and they read the rather horrifying passages about the threat of hell that isn't damaging? The effects of Christianity extend far beyond what the Bible explicity tells people to do, reading the Bible is supposed to be an important part of being a Christian, but some of it rivals works of horror. And I thought that I had shown that saying children are born with sin due to past actions of other people over which they had no control is illogical and another 'bad' feature of Christianity. How generous of him, but he would still seek to use a child as an instrument to test the faith of an unrelated person? Besides, it was an angel who stayed his hand, acting on God's orders probably, but nonetheless, it seems odd. Yes, supposedly Sarah's conception was a miraculous gift from God, and since God knew how much Abraham loved his son, the act was a perfect test of faith, except that the child had no say in the matter, and was merely used as a tool by both parties. Think about it, if the same situation happened today, a father sacrificed his son because God told him to (I'm not saying he did, but let's use the same motivation), would you say that's okay? Fair enough. Although interestingly at a slight tangent (your point is still valid), God approves of human sacrifice several times in the OT, but never explicity rebukes them in the NT. The point was that presumbably the crucifiction of Jesus was part of God's plan, and hence the Jews involvment was necessary, yet the Vatican still blamed them directly up until recently. But it still happens because children are told to read the Bible, and because parents feel obliged to tell their children of the consequences of sinning for their own sake. Which is fine, when Christ's forgiveness is the only message of the NT, but when you get conflicting passages and messages it's not so clear. I don't think people feeling guilt for sinning is part of Christian principles either, but it's an inevitable consequence, you can't deny that when you place such a grave weight on sinning (which the Bible does) then you're going to get such feelings of guilt. [/hide] You know, I've heard from one of my teachers that if you raise a child in an evolutionist environment, they'll learn to believe it. I'm not sure how much initial learning matters as long as they can be openminded later in life and not be like "*plugs ears* blah blah!! I'm not listening!!" God and science are not mutually exclusive, but some Christians think that God made everything directly, while others think he started it with a big bang or something and let it assemble itself. If you were raising your child in an objective manner, wouldn't you need to give her all the arguments from the start to avoid any initial biases? (just a question) What does your argument against insane about pretending that fiction is real refer to? Aboutkids reading up on hell: I've read them; they're not really graphic or anything. Heck, I'm not even sure if they understand those passages without somebody explaining it to them. I know that I didn't understand. About everybody being born with sin: Hmm. I don't think that sin is literally passed on like genes are, but the thing is that everybody sins anyways. I've questioned the "passing on of sin" myself. Abraham and human sacrifice: I think this was more than just testing Abraham; it was to teach him to trust God. He was putting his kid over God in priority, so he needed a drastic reminding or something. Also, wasn't Abraham like old and stuff while Issac was young? I think he could've resisted, even though it's not directly mentioned that he could. Concerning the vatican's choice: Well...it was a part of God's plan that the Jews would do that, but it was the Jews themselves that got themselves involved out of their own choice. I think it was a mob-mindset thing; they were all joining in booing Jesus. Concerning Hell, Jesus, conflicting messages, and guilt: Well, Jesus is the the main topic like insane said, but hell is another topic like you said. It wouldn't be right to teach about one without the other because Jesus wouldn't die for no reason, and hell would be the only path if Jesus wasn't taught about. Also, what conflicts do you see? Why is guilt not a part of Christian principles? You do something wrong, and you feel bad about it. I don't quite see why you think it's wrong.

You ignored what I wrote underneath my source: Oh, whoops. Sorry to have missed your comment, but I still think that it invalidates your argument. You used a term that was defined in terms of free will and choice. Since your source's definition was that it was a choice, you can't use that to prove that God makes people's choices that lead to "true love". It's a contradiction of the terms "predestination" and "true love (as defined by your source)" "'True' love" can't work for your argument, unless I missed something? (Oh, and it was you yourself that said that "Please note that the writer makes the mistake of thinking choice is free rather than illusionary. He has clearly not read the parts in the bible about Predestination.") Ok. [/hide] So this goes back to saying that God made evil then. If that is so, he is a liar and hypocrite for making a Bible with commands and "don'ts" that he himself violates through the choice-making. This is not my opinion: Leviticus 11:44 - I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy. 2 Chronicles 6:21 - May your priests, O LORD God, be clothed with salvation, may your saints rejoice in your goodness. Deuteronomy 32:4 - He is the Rock, his works are perfect (no evil?), and all his ways are just(doesn't "sacrifice nonbelievers"?). A faithful God who does no wrong(doesn't make evil choices for man?), upright and just is he. Psalm 86:15 - But you, O Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness. Psalm 59:17 - O my Strength, I sing praise to you; you, O God, are my fortress, my loving God. Hmm, ok. I wasn't talking about the percentage though. I was talking about [see quote below]. Why did you bring up the fact that most people believe in Predestination in the first place then? Was it just a fact? Its placement in your point made it look like a premise.

Geez, you people are flame-happy. You give him half a username and expect him to know who she is. As for the topic: that's pretty interesting. It's like an opposite of China!

I meant your source for definition of love and your idea of "You think you're making the choice, but God planned for you to make the choice" are incompatible. Refer to my previous post to see them. I expect an answer to the question, with a reason as to why it is, or is not. Genesis 1 is a list of what God made. It says "and God saw that it was good" for everything. Again, you are defining evil by itself! It is NOT a seperate thing. How do you keep making it out to be a seperate thing like yin-yang? Good is the original thing, and evil is a deviation from good. Evil is defined as a deviation from good, but good is its own thing! Because it's a deviation, God didn't have to make it. Man did it on his own. Your source's definition of true love and your idea don't work together. Ok, it's a fact sheet, but a larger percentage doesn't and can't guarantee that the larger % is correct. Take the old view of a geocentric universe as an example of this if you need to.

Here is the definition of True Love from allaboutgod.com: These two are contradictory. Incompatible as far as I can tell. So in other words, God is some sort of control freak? This is how it seems to come across :-s. Nowhere in the Bible have I seen that God made evil, or that he "creates his desired kind of believer". Mark 2:17 - On hearing [the Pharisees complain about Jesus hanging out with sinners], Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." As far as I can tell, the Bible says that everybody is a sinner: Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God True love and good/evil definitions. You already responded to it, so no need to go back. The only terms of yours in the post you're quoting from were: "True love" and "good/evil". Where did you get your information about predestination's popularity within Christianity? Please show me where this happened. Actually, nevermind. My bad.

^ One last thing I need to make sure of before I leave: I see a contradiction that weakens your argument... Illusion of choice absolutely cannot equal true love, unless you're messing with the definition. Define what you're meaning by "true" love for me. What I understand is that "True" love by definition equals a choice because love itself is a choice, so the choice absolutely cannot be an illusion. Ok, I'll use those terms "good" and "evil" only then. Your terms of "good" and "evil" are flawed. You're making them out to be simple contrasts of each other, with God representing the "good". No, good is what God commands, and evil is the deviation of that. These seem to be major parts of your arguement, but they are flawed, very, very flawed. Infact, those seem to be made-up definitions. Oh yeah, and I meant that you don't say "yes" or "no" to my black-and-white, yes/no questions, and instead put some non-yes-or-no answer down. It would help if you answered them. They aren't meant to be redundant questions.

[hide=Babies and death] [/hide] OOH!! I think I found an answer for you!! 2 Samuel 2:21-23 - His servants asked him, "Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!" David answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." (Btw, David was called "a man after God's own heart", so it's safe to assume that both went to heaven.) Also, have you heard of the "age of accountability"? Babies don't have much reasoning/choosing power, which is what that term addresses: it means that below a certain point, people really can't be held accountable for actions [hide=Defender] [/hide] You're enthusiastic about Christianity, and that's great and all, but please do learn about evolution and don't just post opinions like "it sounds like a kid made it up". That is just subjective opinion and is not valuable to this discussion. ROBOSRUS Ehh...I don't know much about him being a prophet; I thought he was a rabbi. As for the Son of God/God thing, that requires a lesson about God. God is a unity of a trinity, 3 seperate entities as one: God the father, Holy Spirit, Jesus the Son. Yeah, it's confusing and I don't get it either, but if he's all powerful, then it is possible for him, I guess. [hide=kelem_ryu] [/hide] It's not a "cure" to guilt as guilt itself isn't a "disease". Christianity is the cure to being stuck in sin and being unable to escape it. [hide=PaperClipsYaaaar] Numerical discrepancies and methods for raising kids seem like pretty inconsequential things. Predestination affects both creation and afterlife, both of which are already very big concepts on their own, so if there was something as jolting as a mistranslation, it would have been discovered already. Divine intervention would be part of the environment that God uses to condition his believers. Just as he places evil on earth, he would also place its opposite. The existence of both good and evil is what elevates his believers to "true love." Again, this kind of seems odd. Wouldn't this make God a hypocrite? I already explained this in the first part of my post, but I'll try to shorten it. The only thing that is "right" to God is cultivating true love and adulation for him. Everything else, whether good or evil, are just tools to accomplish that goal. "The ends justify the means," as they say. [/hide] (Each point of mine refers to the corresponding point in your quote) Ok, that clears things up. Dictionary.com says that wrong/evil and right/good are synonyms by definition. Also, how does good and evil exist if there is no real choice? Evil is a deviation away from good, but you can't deviate if there's no choice...also, why do you keep stating that Christians and Catholics believe that non-Christians are fuel for the fire? John 3:16 :? Alright, your point on mistranslation seems valid enough. Moving on... z0mg!! What are you doing to God's characteristics?! (nah, jk) But seriously, I'm finding (no offense) gaping holes here. Biiig gaping holes. -The definition of "true love" itself is a choice, agreed? If there is not a choice in the matter, it's more of an irresistable attraction, kind of like an infatuation (*shudder*) -Also, this is NOT my (read: Christianity's) God. Your answer seems to be saying "yes" to my question of God's hypocracy: "Everything else, whether good or evil, are just tools to accomplish that goal"; "'The ends justify the means'". God is divine, not a hypocrite, and "loves the world" (John 3:16). Oh, and could you PLEASE answer my questions directly? It would make responding much easier as I wouldn't need to GUESS at your answers. Note: I need to do my homework. I have an essay to write, so I'll be off the topic until tomorrow or maybe Friday.

Isn't Mario party like good for fun with friends at all ages though?

Hmm, ok. I still cannot wrap my mind around the WHY of this. I know that you're saying that God, when making a person knows the full life of that person, but I cannot grasp how this explanation would totally abolish the person's own will. God knows the person's life, but how would the person not make choices inside of time? Besides that, this idea of predetermined lives implies to me that I can go and like...say...cuss at people and it wouldn't be wrong in any sense because God made me do that. "[cabbage] you. God made me say that." It nullifies all right/wrong that there may be, and God would be a hypocrite for making a Bible. [same as above] Crud, I just confused myself on this. Oh well, at least I know what YOU think. Somebody pointed out a site to me with tons of numerical discrepancies. Also, there's one part about raising kids that doesn't really comply with the Greek too well, but I can't even find it with keywords :wall: I'm not sure where you're getting Romans and Ephesians from. I have never mentioned those people. They are mentioned in your verses. Those verses were literally letters to the people of those churches in those places. Again, this kind of seems odd. Wouldn't this make God a hypocrite? Goodnight unless you can post within 5 minutes or so of this post.