Conquer Club

jay_a2j wrote:God gives us free will so WE can choose to serve Him or not! He wants to be loved because WE want to love him! Not because we have no other choice (existing without free-will)! Those who reject God will spend eternity apart from Him, by their own choosing.

Or they'll continue on through reincarnation or some other means, just because the Bible says there's only one road doesn't make it true.

God created angels for the same purpose .... in spite of your "Redundancy isn't a virtue"... who, may I ask, gave you the authority to question Gods plan? Or to claim something, "redundant"?

Who gave me the authority? Jesus did. "The Kingdom of God is within you."

As to your second 'point,' I don't claim that it is redundant, it know it is.

Dictionary.com wrote:re·dun·dant /rɪˈdʌndənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-duhn-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.
2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.
3. having some unusual or extra part or feature.
4. characterized by superabundance or superfluity: lush, redundant vegetation.
5. Engineering.
a. (of a structural member) not necessary for resisting statically determined stresses.
b. (of a structure) having members designed to resist other than statically determined stresses; hyperstatic.
c. noting a complete truss having additional members for resisting eccentric loads. Compare complete (def. , incomplete (def. 3).
d. (of a device, circuit, computer system, etc.) having excess or duplicate parts that can continue to perform in the event of malfunction of some of the parts.
6. Linguistics. characterized by redundancy; predictable.
7. Computers. containing more bits or characters than are required, as a parity bit inserted for checking purposes.
8. Chiefly British. removed or laid off from a job.

The pursuit of life is to serve God. We are either born twice and die once or born once and die twice. Life is a gift from God. We may be physically alive, but we are spiritually dead until we accept Christ.

Or you're living a lie perpetuated by Satan in order to take away that which God gave us and not him. Lucifer was jealous of God and wanted his power, free will developed from the jealousy. God was intrigued by Lucifer's ability to decide for himself, so God took the concept and tested it on Man. It worked, and here we are.

I believe it was Anton LaVey who said, "ALL religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his carnal brain. Just because he has an ego, and cannot accept it, he has to externalize it into some great spiritual device which he calls 'God'."

jay, you sure don't know what you're talking about, do you even read what other people write or do you just check who the auther of the post is and reply accordingly?

If god KNOWS what IS GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE IT DOES it MUST happen. And then there are no choices. Only the one thing that god knows will happen.



How can you talk about free will if there are no choices? Omniscience boils down to preordination. A person cannot choose to fly a plane into a building and at the same choose not to fly it into the building. If a perfect and omniscient god KNOWS that he is going to fly it into the building before the person does it he must fly it into the building, if he chose not to god would not be omniscient anymore.

vtmarik wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:God gives us free will so WE can choose to serve Him or not! He wants to be loved because WE want to love him! Not because we have no other choice (existing without free-will)! Those who reject God will spend eternity apart from Him, by their own choosing.

Or they'll continue on through reincarnation or some other means, just because the Bible says there's only one road doesn't make it true.

God created angels for the same purpose .... in spite of your "Redundancy isn't a virtue"... who, may I ask, gave you the authority to question Gods plan? Or to claim something, "redundant"?

Who gave me the authority? Jesus did. "The Kingdom of God is within you."

As to your second 'point,' I don't claim that it is redundant, it know it is.

Dictionary.com wrote:re·dun·dant /rɪˈdʌndənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-duhn-duhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.
2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part.
3. having some unusual or extra part or feature.
4. characterized by superabundance or superfluity: lush, redundant vegetation.
5. Engineering.
a. (of a structural member) not necessary for resisting statically determined stresses.
b. (of a structure) having members designed to resist other than statically determined stresses; hyperstatic.
c. noting a complete truss having additional members for resisting eccentric loads. Compare complete (def. , incomplete (def. 3).
d. (of a device, circuit, computer system, etc.) having excess or duplicate parts that can continue to perform in the event of malfunction of some of the parts.
6. Linguistics. characterized by redundancy; predictable.
7. Computers. containing more bits or characters than are required, as a parity bit inserted for checking purposes.
8. Chiefly British. removed or laid off from a job.

The pursuit of life is to serve God. We are either born twice and die once or born once and die twice. Life is a gift from God. We may be physically alive, but we are spiritually dead until we accept Christ.

Or you're living a lie perpetuated by Satan in order to take away that which God gave us and not him. Lucifer was jealous of God and wanted his power, free will developed from the jealousy. God was intrigued by Lucifer's ability to decide for himself, so God took the concept and tested it on Man. It worked, and here we are.

I believe it was Anton LaVey who said, "ALL religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his carnal brain. Just because he has an ego, and cannot accept it, he has to externalize it into some great spiritual device which he calls 'God'."

brushes the dirt off his sandles and walks away



"It is finished"

What Jay? No scripture? No pithy comeback?

"It is finished" with the final comment being my own, do I take it to mean that you forfeit?

In that case: VICTORY!

vtmarik wrote:VICTORY!

hardly..... I'll let you keep your beliefs in reincarnation, Satan's big lie and what not. Its not worth the headach and I am instructed not to throw pearls to be trampled on by swine.

Good-day.

Another splendid example of "ignoring difficult questions", btw Marik, do you feel like defending free will by using atomar and sub-atomar particles? Because that turns out even worse than an omniscient god.

jay_a2j wrote:I believe it was Anton LaVey who said, "ALL religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his carnal brain. Just because he has an ego, and cannot accept it, he has to externalize it into some great spiritual device which he calls 'God'."

I like this Anton. He actually THINKS. Too bad most dont. Must be that ego!

MeDeFe wrote:Another splendid example of "ignoring difficult questions", btw Marik, do you feel like defending free will by using atomar and sub-atomar particles? Because that turns out even worse than an omniscient god.

No... that was really dumb of me, brought on by sleeplessness and a desire to sound more intelligent that I am.

Backglass wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:I believe it was Anton LaVey who said, "ALL religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his carnal brain. Just because he has an ego, and cannot accept it, he has to externalize it into some great spiritual device which he calls 'God'."

I like this Anton. He actually THINKS. Too bad most dont. Must be that ego!

backglass I didn't type that...give vtmarik the credit he deserves!

jay_a2j wrote:backglass I didn't type that...give vtmarik the credit he deserves!

Why give me credit? All I did was quote the man.

He also happens to be the author of the Satanic Bible, which despite its title is mostly a book about being secure in oneself and not worshiping some fictitious creature with horns and a tail. It reads like Nietzsche but a friendlier, saner Nietzsche.

vtmarik wrote:about being secure in oneself and not worshiping some fictitious creature with horns and a tail.

Or a fictitious creature with a staff & white beard.

Backglass wrote:Or a fictitious creature with a staff & white beard.

Gandalf?

vtmarik wrote:

Backglass wrote:Or a fictitious creature with a staff & white beard.

Gandalf?

lol...well both are fictitious.

Does this mean that this thread is over and we can call the Bible invalid?

Mirak wrote:Does this mean that this thread is over and we can call the Bible invalid?

Thats the way I see it. Not proving validity = invalid.

jay_a2j wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I won't let you off the hook that easily jay, since you are prepared to write 6 posts saying that you'd happily give up free will to obey interpretations of some ancient writings you should be able to write at least ONE post explaining what's so wrong with my reasoning that an omniscient god is not compatible with free will, you were so happy you could post the same things again that bear no relevance to the problem I gave you to ponder that you missed a part of my last post that's also important, I thought I should give you a hint so you see where the problem with omniscience and free will lies, but you must have missed it.

Here's the quote.

MeDeFe wrote:Also note that I don't claim that god (provided he exists) controls human actions anywhere. The sole premiss of his omniscience is enough to make free will impossible.

Now please go back and reread my reasoning. It's really quite simple to understand. Well... at least it should be.

Apparently you don't understand that Gods omniscience does not contradict free-will. You stated "path A and B". God knows you will choose "path A" but YOU CHOOSE IT!

I guess this is hard for you to grasp. Do not be dismayed, you are not alone.

It shouldn't be that hard to see that omniscience and free-will are, by definition, mutually exclusive. If god knows I will do something, then what choice do I have? This really isn't rocket science.

It seems to be so for jay.

something i thought of today..not really to do with what youve been talking about but i didnt want to start a new religious debate threat

what happened to all that gold jesus was given at birth if his family were so poor??

and if they were so wise why did they give gold to someone they didnt no?

mightyal wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I won't let you off the hook that easily jay, since you are prepared to write 6 posts saying that you'd happily give up free will to obey interpretations of some ancient writings you should be able to write at least ONE post explaining what's so wrong with my reasoning that an omniscient god is not compatible with free will, you were so happy you could post the same things again that bear no relevance to the problem I gave you to ponder that you missed a part of my last post that's also important, I thought I should give you a hint so you see where the problem with omniscience and free will lies, but you must have missed it.

Here's the quote.

MeDeFe wrote:Also note that I don't claim that god (provided he exists) controls human actions anywhere. The sole premiss of his omniscience is enough to make free will impossible.

Now please go back and reread my reasoning. It's really quite simple to understand. Well... at least it should be.

Apparently you don't understand that Gods omniscience does not contradict free-will. You stated "path A and B". God knows you will choose "path A" but YOU CHOOSE IT!

I guess this is hard for you to grasp. Do not be dismayed, you are not alone.

It shouldn't be that hard to see that omniscience and free-will are, by definition, mutually exclusive. If god knows I will do something, then what choice do I have? This really isn't rocket science.

okay, not siding with jay...god no, can't pay me to do that...just clarifying what he's saying...you have path A and B...god knows you are going to choose A, but he doesn't do anything to influence you choosing it...he just sits back with the popcorn and watches you struggle for your whole life...thats all he does, he doesn't come to you in a dream and say, "choose path A, choose path A" or anything

s.xkitten wrote:

mightyal wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:I won't let you off the hook that easily jay, since you are prepared to write 6 posts saying that you'd happily give up free will to obey interpretations of some ancient writings you should be able to write at least ONE post explaining what's so wrong with my reasoning that an omniscient god is not compatible with free will, you were so happy you could post the same things again that bear no relevance to the problem I gave you to ponder that you missed a part of my last post that's also important, I thought I should give you a hint so you see where the problem with omniscience and free will lies, but you must have missed it.

Here's the quote.

MeDeFe wrote:Also note that I don't claim that god (provided he exists) controls human actions anywhere. The sole premiss of his omniscience is enough to make free will impossible.

Now please go back and reread my reasoning. It's really quite simple to understand. Well... at least it should be.

Apparently you don't understand that Gods omniscience does not contradict free-will. You stated "path A and B". God knows you will choose "path A" but YOU CHOOSE IT!

I guess this is hard for you to grasp. Do not be dismayed, you are not alone.

It shouldn't be that hard to see that omniscience and free-will are, by definition, mutually exclusive. If god knows I will do something, then what choice do I have? This really isn't rocket science.

okay, not siding with jay...god no, can't pay me to do that...just clarifying what he's saying...you have path A and B...god knows you are going to choose A, but he doesn't do anything to influence you choosing it...he just sits back with the popcorn and watches you struggle for your whole life...thats all he does, he doesn't come to you in a dream and say, "choose path A, choose path A" or anything

There is no path B. You cannot choose it. It's an illusion. You have no free-will, that too is illusory; existence is entirely pointless.

so don't be christian, call it good...

kitten, I know jay said that, but it doesn't change anything.

Backglass wrote:

Mirak wrote:Does this mean that this thread is over and we can call the Bible invalid?

Thats the way I see it. Not proving validity = invalid.

Actually, not being able to prove the validity of anything does not make it invalid. Proof is a fickle thing. We have yet to be able to rationally prove our own existence. DesCartes, in his famous "I think, therefore I am" actually presupposed his own existence. The "I" at the beginning. So not being able to prove the validity of something actually does very little to demonstrate that it is invalid. It simply hasn't been proven either way.

As far as the Bible is concerned, there is good evidence that it is, at least the most historically accurate source we have on the ancient world. If we take it at face value it does make some interesting prophesies which went on to be fulfilled, which points toward it being of supernatural origin.

MR. Nate wrote:As far as the Bible is concerned, there is good evidence that it is, at least the most historically accurate source we have on the ancient world.

Historically accurate? After having been translated, altered and re-written according to the whim of 2000 years of various rulers, popes, kings and conquerers? Most likely, it is grossly inaccurate and foolish to take at face value as the hard truth.

MR. Nate wrote: If we take it at face value it does make some interesting prophesies which went on to be fulfilled, which points toward it being of supernatural origin.

Again with the prophesies. Must we go through this again as well? Your a little late to the party my friend.

Backglass wrote:Historically accurate? After having been translated, altered and re-written according to the whim of 2000 years of various rulers, popes, kings and conquerers? Most likely, it is grossly inaccurate and foolish to take at face value as the hard truth.

Are you talking abou the new testiment?