PaperClipsYaaaar

Like I said in my previous post, it is the illusion of choice because there are verses in the bible about Predestination. If the bible did not speak of Predestination, then, yes, it would be vague. But there are also verses in the Bible about Free Will. I dont deny that there are verses about Predestination, that is why I said the debate can go both ways and will never be fully solved until we die. No, you don't understand. Those phrases are not about Free Will. They are about choices. Free Will is dependent on whether or not Predestination exists, but not the other way around. That means, since there are verses in the bible about Predestination, the verses about choices are illusions. If there weren't verses about Predestination, then the verses about choices would be Free Will. Choice is Free Will is it not? No. There are two forms of choice (in this situation): 1) Free Choice 2) Illusion of Choice Because the bible has Predestination, we have #2. If the bible didn't have Predestination, we would have #1.

I know one theory that I would like to look into: Me. You. In bed. Bang.

*gasp* It was you who did the evil Gates' bidding! Murderer!

Thanks for the update.

Like I said in my previous post, it is the illusion of choice because there are verses in the bible about Predestination. If the bible did not speak of Predestination, then, yes, it would be vague. But there are also verses in the Bible about Free Will. I dont deny that there are verses about Predestination, that is why I said the debate can go both ways and will never be fully solved until we die. No, you don't understand. Those phrases are not about Free Will. They are about choices. Free Will is dependent on whether or not Predestination exists, but not the other way around. That means, since there are verses in the bible about Predestination, the verses about choices are illusions. If there weren't verses about Predestination, then the verses about choices would be Free Will.

Like I said in my previous post, it is the illusion of choice because there are verses in the bible about Predestination. If the bible did not speak of Predestination, then, yes, it would be vague.

I'm more worried about what's happening to Russia's human rights, especially the right to free speech, than their weapons testing because I don't think they would be stupid enough to try to invade other countries.

They also have youth camps where time is set aside for the youths to have sex with each other. Article is from the Daily Mail but it's true anyway so you might as well read it in a sensational format.

That is only the illusion of choice. You need to think of this aspect of the bible in layers. If there were no verses in the Bible about Predestination, then this would be considered free will. However, since there are verses about Predestination, the words you have quoted can only be considered part of the environment God created to condition us. For reference, here is a chart of Predestination vs. Free Will verses: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/free.html That is not true at all. Predestined does not mean automatic brainwash. Presdestination means God made a series of choices for you that will ultimately lead you to become a believer or non-believer on your deathbed.

God already made all the choices for the person. It just seems like the person has free will to make his own choices because of the environment that God designed. Cursing, drinking, committing crimes, The Apple, and the non-believers around you are not "wrong." They are evil. Similarly, Mother Teresa, Divine Intervention, the YMCA, the Bible, and your fellow believers are not "right." They are good. The Christian God wants his followers to have true love for him. In order to cultivate true love among his followers, he places them in an environment that contains both good and evil and plans their decisions so that they gain the necessary experience in both areas. The most eye-opening part of this is that billions of non-believers are predestined to be sacrificed as part of the collection of evil in the environment. Again, this is not some radical conjecture. This is the belief held by most Christians and Catholics throughout the world, especially outside of America. 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: 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. 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. I did not know that at all. :D

Err, obviously you didn't take AP Biology, and even when I took Bio I, theory of evolution was MENTIONED. And of course they wouldn't teach man from monkey because in the theory of evolution, man didn't evolve from monkeys. Educate your self. Please. And don't reply with an off topic statement. It all depends on which part of the state you live in. I'm pretty sure that even if Barihawk had taken AP Bio at his local high school, he still wouldn't have learned much about evolution.

It's common practice for students to be able to interrupt the teacher whenever they want in such a way that the teacher has no power to stop them :-s ? That's completely different. No law has been passed to let student's interrupt But that is exactly what this law does. I read about it earlier today, even though, according to what I read, it is called a "state mandate." I'm not sure if that's the same as a law. It would be nice if the OP could link to a source describing this law.

Somebody got stuffed in a locker today.

Here you go: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I never talked about Islam. This thread is about Christianity, and every one of my posts has been about Christianity. Ad Hominem means "attacking the opponent's personality." I did not criticiz Adventurer's personality in my debate. Ad Hominem tu Quoque means "accusation of hypocrisy." I have never accused Adventurer of been a hypocrite. If I were to appeal to belief (in the religious sense, which is what I think you are talking about), I would have to be a religious person. Yes, I am appealing you to my belief through reason. That is what debating is about. Also, "wistful" means sad. I'm not sure what you mean by "sad thinking." Appeal to ridicule means to "present your opponent's argument in a ridiculous way." I did not do anything to the argument to make it ridiculous. God's cruel use of predestination is ridiculous in itself. I invite you to try to describe his sacrifice of billions of non-believers in a way that doesn't make it seem ridiculous. Begging the question means "taking the proof for granted." I definitely did not take the proof for granted because I posted an entire debate where I argued against myself. No. Appeal to ignorance means "believing a premise to be true only because it has not been proven false." I have certainly provided plenty more evidence for predestination other than that it "hasn't been proven false." circumstantial Ad Hominem means to "dismiss your opponent's argument because his circumstances predisposes him to make it." An example of this would be, "Of course Tom would say cigarettes are healthy. He works for a tobacco company." I did not use this argument at all. Fallacy of composition means "assuming something is true of the whole because it is true of a part of the whole." An example of this would be, "We cannot see atoms. Humans are made of atoms. Therefore, we cannot see humans." I did not commit this fallacy at all. I do not even see how someone could deal with only a "part" of predestination. It is one whole, indivisible concept. The Straw Man fallacy means "misrepresenting your opponent's argument in order to easily refute it." An example of this: Original Position: I think Children shouldn't run in busy streets. Straw Man Manipulation: I think Children should be locked up all day. In order for me to have used the Straw Man fallacy, Adventurer would have had to have an Original Position. Before the debate I wrote, we had not approached the Predestination concept at all. Therefore, he could not have had a position on Predestination for me to manipulate. If you see any locations within my debate where I used the straw man fallacy, please point it out. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, back to your post. Predestination is the correct translation. It is the concept that most Christian sects and all Catholics believe in. The only people who disagree with it are the Methodists. Predestination = Dictation. As I said before, it goes further than just merely predicting the future. Man responds, but God determined Man's response when he created Man. Yes, that is what it means. I'm pretty sure that if it had been a mistranslation, the many Catholics and Christian groups who believed (and still believe) in Predestination would have discovered the error within the past couple of centuries. I'm not sure where you're getting Romans and Ephesians from. I have never mentioned those people. 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." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- omniscience != predestination predestination is active creation. "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. [verse 17 omitted] So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." (Rom. 9:16-18, NASB) And many, many other quotes. In contrast, there are no quotes in the bible about free will. Seriously. That is not predestination, and that viewpoint is not a half-way stance. Predestination is not the opportunity, it is the decision

This was what my red vs blue debate, and every post that I wrote following that, was about. The biblical verses that I quoted above addressed that theory. Predestination means to foreordain, not just to predict. It signifies the difference between omnipotence and mere omniprescience. I guess I come off sounding like that sometimes :)

I'm kicking you out of the cult for calling it a charade. TURN IN YOUR PAPERCLIPS.

hellz yeah

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, [...]" (Eph. 1:3-5, NASB) "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Rom. 8:28-30, NASB) Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psa. 139:16, NASB) "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. [verse 17 omitted] So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." (Rom. 9:16-18, NASB) Please show me the location of the statement that I have been "skirting." I was not provoking him. I said that to show him that I am on the same side as he is. He thought that I was a Christian because I was arguing from the Christian point of view.

It doesn't matter whether God plans the decisions or randomly generates them. It still means that he consciously divides the population into believers and non-believers each time he creates a batch of new people.

Oh god you really did it

So why are you arguing for this being correct? I am arguing for this to be correct assuming the Christian God exists. I personally think that it is despicable, and I hope that the Christians who read this thread will, at the very least, become doubtful of their conceptions of what their God is and does. So answer my question, why does a non believer have to exist so someone already pre-destined to believe can believe? The non-believer is part of the environment that enhances the believer's belief to a higher level, or what Christians call "true love." God designed these background characters of sin so that his believers would have a catalogue of experiences that would bring them up to God's desired standards. So God sacrificing us so that you can have faith is not martyrdom? God is the one making the sacrifice here, we are the sacrifice to you apparently. First of all, *I* am an agnostic, so I will be one of the many riding the first-class train to hell ;) God sacrificing non-believers is not martyrdom in the Christian sense (everything I write in this thread assumes that the Christian God exists and Christianity is the right religion). Jesus martyred himself as a believer, so he would be considered a martyr by biblical standards. The billions of non-believers are, as certain posters in this thread put so cruely, "side-effects." Again, your outrage and inference that God is selfish is exactly the reaction I am hoping for.

No one's belief is robotic. The believers have enhanced belief towards God's love because of the presence of non-believers, and the non-believers have enhanced belief away from God's love because of the presence of believers. As I have said repeatedly, true love cannot exist without evil and vice versa. You are giving non-believers nothing more than a robotic purpose by saying that we are here so others can use us in order to develop their faith and go to heaven. We have been reduced from humans and equals to an object by your theory, an object in which for some reason enables the true selected few to believe. Yeah, I think so too. In this concept, the non-believers are considered subpar. I can not actually beleive you agree with this. You are saying Christians are worth more than non believers, thats called inequality. It's as bad as racism. I don't agree with it, but thank you for your outrage - Hopefully, it will be a human facet for certain posters in this thread who continue to believe that their god is benevolent and that free-will can exist under their system. God sentences all non-believers, including Muslims, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers. Allah sentences all non-believers, including Christians, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers. I used Christianity in my self-debate instead of Islam because this thread is about Christianity. This thread assumes the existance of the Christian God. Please answer the question. Yes, this thread assumes the existence of the Christian God. That is why I have been talking about the Christian God in every single one of my posts. :P Are you God? If you aren't, then how do you know sacrifices ended with Jesus? It is one of the main outcomes of Jesus' death. The end of moasic sacrifices, because God sacrificed his son to atone us of our sins. Mosaic sacrifice refers to Jesus' martyrdom. The kind of sacrifice that has happened afterwards, in which billions are sent to hell so that a few may be educated in God's "correct" viewpoint/conditioning, is not martyrdom.

Look harder.

No one's belief is robotic. The believers have enhanced belief towards God's love because of the presence of non-believers, and the non-believers have enhanced belief away from God's love because of the presence of believers. As I have said repeatedly, true love cannot exist without evil and vice versa. You are giving non-believers nothing more than a robotic purpose by saying that we are here so others can use us in order to develop their faith and go to heaven. We have been reduced from humans and equals to an object by your theory, an object in which for some reason enables the true selected few to believe. Yeah, I think so too. In this concept, the non-believers are considered subpar. God sentences all non-believers, including Muslims, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers. Allah sentences all non-believers, including Christians, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers. I used Christianity in my self-debate instead of Islam because this thread is about Christianity. Are you God? If you aren't, then how do you know sacrifices ended with Jesus?

No one's belief is robotic. The believers have enhanced belief towards God's love because of the presence of non-believers, and the non-believers have enhanced belief away from God's love because of the presence of believers. As I have said repeatedly, true love cannot exist without evil and vice versa. Yes that is what I'm saying. How many times are you going to repeat what I already said? :P