Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…8485878990…196

Comments

  • #4302
    nickcave
    Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭nickcave


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, I believe there are. Many young infants would fit your description.
    The very young do not fit my description - 'Capable of sin, but does not sin'. They cannot make rational choices.

    Any adults/people who are capable of choice?
    What afterlife awaits them? I believe that they spend eternity in God's presence.
    Which would be in itself a path determined for them - one which they did not and could not choose.
    When you said there was a contradiction in my argument
    I did not.
    Some are not saved because they reject the gift.
    rather than accepting it? You're not convincing me here.
    To be saved is to accept the free gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. There is no contract to be completed before you receive the gift. The New Testament states very clearly that when you accept this salvation then you have already passed from death to life.

    The Gospel also declares that, once you have accepted this gift, then God gives you His Holy Spirit - an experience that theologians call regeneration (and the apostle Peter called being born again). A natural result of this regeneration is that your lifestyle will change, producing good works, and you will follow Jesus. But the New Testament is very clear on this point, such a change of heart follows salvation, not vice versa.
    We're talking about after-life, not salvation in the 'born-again' sense. And in that sense you have to live your life in God's way in order to receive the reward of everlasting life in Heaven. That is a contract. You mentioned Hitler etc. How do you know that Hitler is not in heaven? Had it something to do with the way he lived his life?


  • #4303
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    So you aren't going to answer the question then?

    So, once again, how exactly is an interventionist God contradictory to the notion of free will? (Please note, saying "God is different" is not actually an answer to the question).

    I'm getting that sense of Déjà vu.

    Here is the perfect explanation -

    So now you're complaining because your free will has consequences? If it was devoid of consequences then it wouldn't really be free will at all, would it?


  • #4304
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Ah, you're back.

    So, once again, how exactly is an interventionist God contradictory to the notion of free will? (Please note, saying "God is different" is not actually an answer to the question).

    If God intervened any time I was about to sin, and thus made it so that I could never sin, do you believe this would be contrary to the notion of free will, since it is removes the option to choose to sin (or more specifically takes away the need to choose not to)?


  • #4305
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Here is the perfect explanation -

    So now you're complaining because your free will has consequences? If it was devoid of consequences then it wouldn't really be free will at all, would it?

    Ok, Marien, you're going to have to explain what the connection is here. Because that is like saying that 4+6=Blue.

    Free will has consequences. An interventionist God is perfectly compatible with free will. The fact that free will has consequences doesn't change that fact one iota.


  • #4306
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    If God intervened any time I was about to sin, and thus made it so that I could never sin, do you believe this would be contrary to the notion of free will, since it is removes the option to choose to sin (or more specifically takes away the need to choose not to)?

    That would depend on the circumstances.

    For example, if God kept intervening uninvited and thwarting your will, then that would be contrary to the notion of free will.

    However, a very different scenario would be where you prayed to God and asked Him to intervene and stop you sinning. In that case God would be helping you, despite your temptations to the contrary, to do what you really want. Therefore, in that scenario, God is actually enhancing your free will be helping you in your stated goal to be free of something that is binding or enslaving you.

    A simple analogy might explain this better. My second child was born with a severe, and ultimately fatal, handicap and her doctors told us that there was a 25% risk that any subsequent children would have the same condition. Therefore I made the decision to get a vasectomy. In this case the surgeon was not interfering with my free will - he was acting at my request.

    But imagine I lived in a totalitarian atheist regime where they wanted to impose a limit on the number of children born, and where I was forced to have a vasectomy. In that case the surgeon would be interfering with my free will, since I had not requested him to perform the operation.


  • #4307
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Ok, Marien, you're going to have to explain what the connection is here. Because that is like saying that 4+6=Blue.

    Free will has consequences. An interventionist God is perfectly compatible with free will. The fact that free will has consequences doesn't change that fact one iota.

    -In the general run of things you are perfectly correct and so back to my question on prayer

    -'' Is the idea of prayer a call for God to interfere with free will ? ''

    And the example of the person becoming an addict by the exercise of free will and the consequence - addiction.

    So a prayer to remove that addiction is calling for an interventionist God in that specific case ?


  • #4308
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    nickcave wrote: »
    The very young do not fit my description - 'Capable of sin, but does not sin'. They cannot make rational choices.

    Any adults/people who are capable of choice?

    No, I think that our sinning is pretty much universal (with the exception of Jesus, of course).

    You are making a category error here, I believe, in that you are mixing up two separate issues. In life we don't punish or penalise people for being bad people - we punish or penalise them for doing bad things.

    So, for example, Fred Phelps is a nasty mean-minded individual. Even if the fear of the law restrained him from breaking any laws - he is still a scumbag. But the law can't punish someone for simply being unpleasant. But if he breaks the law then he incurs the consequent penalties. He can't hold his hands up in the air and say, "It's not my fault - I can't help it because I'm a scumbag."

    Sin incurs a penalty, not because we are sinful people, but because we commit sins. We don't deserve eternal separation from God because we are sinners - we deserve eternal separation because we have sinned.
    Which would be in itself a path determined for them - one which they did not and could not choose.
    Indeed, and such is the unfairness of life. Just as a baby might receive life-saving surgery without choosing to do so. Just as my mother fed me without me having any say in the matter.
    rather than accepting it? You're not convincing me here.
    I'm sure I'm not, but I think that can more plausibly be ascribed to your biases than to any defect in my argument. :)
    We're talking about after-life, not salvation in the 'born-again' sense.
    No we're not. This forum is for the discussion of Christian belief - and the Christian position is that eternal life begins when you become a Christian.

    You may want to artificially separate the two - but in that case we would be discussing your misconceptions rather than discussing Christian beliefs.
    And in that sense you have to live your life in God's way in order to receive the reward of everlasting life in Heaven. That is a contract.
    Again, there's not much point me discussing your erroneous misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. I'm happy to discuss my beliefs as a Christian, and they certainly don't match what you just said.
    You mentioned Hitler etc. How do you know that Hitler is not in heaven? Had it something to do with the way he lived his life?
    I can't actually be sure that Hitler isn't in heaven. If he genuinely repented in his dying moments and accepted the Gospel then I see no reason why he would be in hell. I doubt it happpened that way in the bunker, so I assume he'll probably go to hell, but I may be wrong.


  • #4309
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    -In the general run of things you are perfectly correct and so back to my question on prayer

    -'' Is the idea of prayer a call for God to interfere with free will ? ''

    And the example of the person becoming an addict by the exercise of free will and the consequence - addiction.

    So a prayer to remove that addiction is calling for an interventionist God in that specific case ?

    Addiction is a bondage that forces you to do things you don't actually want to do (I speak from personal experience here). I think one could reasonably argue that having an addiction removed, and therefore being free to choose whether to take drugs or not without such an overwhelming compulsion, is an enhancement of one's free will.

    I think the only way in which it could be viewed as a denial of free will would be if the addict enjoys being an addict and would not want his/her addiction to be removed. In over 30 years of being a Christian, including many long hours working with addicts, I can honestly say that I've never encountered such a scenario.


  • #4310
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Addiction is a bondage that forces you to do things you don't actually want to do (I speak from personal experience here). I think one could reasonably argue that having an addiction removed, and therefore being free to choose whether to take drugs or not without such an overwhelming compulsion, is an enhancement of one's free will.

    I think the only way in which it could be viewed as a denial of free will would be if the addict enjoys being an addict and would not want his/her addiction to be removed. In over 30 years of being a Christian, including many long hours working with addicts, I can honestly say that I've never encountered such a scenario.


    In a came to believe that a power greater than ourselves restored us to sanity kind of way ? And there is no question that having the addiction removed must make for a better human being and in better shape to correctly use their free will next time.

    But the question still stands though- perhaps a better example might be of an addict refusing to accept counselling and a mother/wife/friend praying for a change of heart.

    Just on a side note I have known quite a few people who ''enjoyed'' their addiction, some until it was just too late.


  • #4311
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Penn wrote: »
    philologos wrote: »
    Penn: It would look like that from a perspective that we think that God's judgement is unfair or unjust. Actually, if we look at it honestly, we've all done wrong and we all deserve to be punished for it. We've all despised God in our daily lives, we've all shown that we have really hated Him.

    And that sounds fair and just to you? If we've all "done wrong and deserve to be punished" just for not worshipping God enough, again, that's on God, not us. God is the one who decided that people should be punished for that. God is the one who decided that that is wrong.

    I ask again, why is there a punishment?
    God actually is unfair only in so far as He has offered anyone forgiveness. What would be just would be if we all were condemned before Him.

    Punishment exists because God is just. Much as rapists are sentenced so are we. Thankfully for those who trust in Jesus God's full wrath was satisfied through Him. For those who reject God's mercy unless they repent there will tragically be condemnation.

    To ask why punishment exists or why Jesus had to die suggests to me that you don't understand how serious sin is and how serious the rejection of God is.

    God has been more than fair to us. Pinning the blame on Him for what is wrong with us is what is ridiculous and absurd if you unfold the truth and look at it square in the eye.

    That's what caused me to see the weight of my sin and realise there is only one way to forgiveness that is through King Jesus.

    Every day I'm thankful that He rescued me even when I lived in contempt of His loving rule.


  • Advertisement
  • #4312
    Barr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    philologos wrote: »
    God actually is unfair only in so far as He has offered anyone forgiveness. What would be just would be if we all were condemned before Him.

    Punishment exists because God is just. Much as rapists are sentenced so are we. Thankfully for those who trust in Jesus God's full wrath was satisfied through Him. For those who reject God's mercy unless they repent there will tragically be condemnation.

    To ask why punishment exists or why Jesus had to die suggests to me that you don't understand how serious sin is and how serious the rejection of God is.

    God has been more than fair to us. Pinning the blame on Him for what is wrong with us is what is ridiculous and absurd if you unfold the truth and look at it square in the eye.

    That's what caused me to see the weight of my sin and realise there is only one way to forgiveness that is through King Jesus.

    Every day I'm thankful that He rescued me even when I lived in contempt of His loving rule.

    With the parts I've highlighted, you realize that no one, not even God, can be both just and merciful, at least in the terms that we as humans have defined them (in which case you'll have to inform us of the definitions you're using.) It's the Just vs. Mercy argument:
    1. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
    2. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
    3. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
    Ergo, he must be one, the other or neither....

    You said we're pinning the blame on God for what is wrong with us? Well did God not supposedly create us and give us our souls, our free will, our ability to reason and understand the evidence before us? Would he not have realized by giving us free will and then hiding away for 2000 years (if not longer), some of his creations may turn away from him?

    And how is an infinite punishment for a finite crime just? Is locking your children away in a torture dungeon in your home for not loving you just? I think it's a horrible act and is morally reprehensible and I believe anyone who thinks that the above about it, is more moral than the God of the Bible. There is no moral standard in which you, me or anyone, including God, can look at that statement and say ''That person was morally correct in his decision.''

    Remember the Josef Fritzl case? Was he just in the punishment of his daughter if he thought she didn't love him?


  • #4313
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    -In the general run of things you are perfectly correct and so back to my question on prayer

    -'' Is the idea of prayer a call for God to interfere with free will ? ''

    And the example of the person becoming an addict by the exercise of free will and the consequence - addiction.

    So a prayer to remove that addiction is calling for an interventionist God in that specific case ?

    Here again you are rigging the question and making special cases.

    It has been pointed out.
    1. One can not argue from the particular to the general
    2. If you are going to define intervention =removal of free will and then ask "does intervention (which we have already defined as removing free will) remove free will or not?" then you are in a circular argument.

    a prayer to remove addiction is calling for intervention yes.
    Is it removing free will?
    Well if you are going to define "intervention" = "removing free will" in this specific case or general then if you can't see your problem what can anyone say to that?

    Intervention does not = removal of free will! Do you understand that?

    marienbad wrote: »
    In a came to believe that a power greater than ourselves restored us to sanity kind of way ? And there is no question that having the addiction removed must make for a better human being and in better shape to correctly use their free will next time.

    But the question still stands though- perhaps a better example might be of an addict refusing to accept counselling and a mother/wife/friend praying for a change of heart.

    What question ? Whether intervention = removal of free will? You have not shown it does in any way!

    Just on a side note I have known quite a few people who ''enjoyed'' their addiction, some until it was just too late.

    why do you have "enjoyed" in quotes then?
    Playing with words and suggesting someone "high" is making a coherent decision to be like that forever isn't a really strong argument.


  • #4314
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Here again you are rigging the question and making special cases.

    It has been pointed out.
    1. One can not argue from the particular to the general
    2. If you are going to define intervention =removal of free will and then ask "does intervention (which we have already defined as removing free will) remove free will or not?" then you are in a circular argument.

    a prayer to remove addiction is calling for intervention yes.
    Is it removing free will?
    Well if you are going to define "intervention" = "removing free will" in this specific case or general then if you can't see your problem what can anyone say to that?



    Intervention does not = removal of free will! Do you understand that?




    What question ? Whether intervention = removal of free will? You have not shown it does in any way!




    why do you have "enjoyed" in quotes then?
    Playing with words and suggesting someone "high" is making a coherent decision to be like that forever isn't a really strong argument.

    I can only assume from your question on ''enjoyed'' you don't really read my post or the preceeding posts by PDN .


    If the outcome of a free- willed choice/decision is changed from what it other wise would be and through no imput from the original decision maker by an outside agency- then is that any longer a choice made from free will ?

    Why would I show whether intervention=removal of free will when that is the guts of the question I am asking ?


  • #4315
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Barr125 wrote: »
    With the parts I've highlighted, you realize that no one, not even God, can be both just and merciful, at least in the terms that we as humans have defined them (in which case you'll have to inform us of the definitions you're using.) It's the Just vs. Mercy argument:
    1. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.
    2. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.
    3. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.
    Ergo, he must be one, the other or neither....

    Not so. An example would be a judge who tries a case of a wounded war hero who has fallen on hard times and robbed from a supermarket in order to feed himself. The judge, being just, applies the law to the war hero just as he would anyone else and imposes a heavy fine. Then the judge, because he is merciful, pays the war hero's fine for him from his own pocket.

    And that is a faint picture of what God has done for us. He is totally just in imposing the penalty for sin - but then He comes in the Person of Jesus Christ and suffers the pains of hell in our stead.

    Perfect Justice + Perfect Mercy = Amazing Grace

    Or, as the old hymn of the 1904 Welsh revival puts it:

    On the mount of crucifixion,
    Fountains opened deep and wide;
    Through the floodgates of God’s mercy
    Flowed a vast and gracious tide.
    Grace and love, like mighty rivers,
    Poured incessant from above,
    And Heav’n’s peace and perfect justice
    Kissed a guilty world in love    .


  • #4316
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I don't see the issue with God being both just and merciful.

    God is just insofar as He expects sin to be punished or atoned for.
    God is merciful insofar as He has given forgiveness to mankind by belief and trust in Jesus Christ and His saving death on the cross.

    If one accepts this forgiveness - Jesus has atoned for the sins of mankind by His crucifixion.

    If one doesn't accept this forgiveness - one must be punished as if Jesus had done nothing.

    God is still just, and God is still merciful.


  • #4317
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »

    If the outcome of a free- willed choice/decision is changed from what it other wise would be and through no imput from the original decision maker by an outside agency- then is that any longer a choice made from free will ?

    ALL outcomes of ALL choices may be different. Some may be the same. Assuming the decision maker is unaware of the change, changing the possible outcomes in no way affect the choice.

    In the case you mention where the decision maker is aware of a possible changing outcome based n interference, ff course one can use threat cohesion or inducement whether reward or bribery to affect a choice but that still isnt removing the free choice is it?
    Why would I show whether intervention=removal of free will when that is the guts of the question I am asking ?

    Exactly! Im just pointing out that assuming in advance the thing you are trying to prove as a basis to prove it is circular reasoning.


  • #4318
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    So we can agree that religion has no effect on stopping any of that? Because these things happened in countries with religion too.

    We can agree your three suppositions about history were wrong and based on the points made you have jumped off onto another supposition. which is also wrong by the way.The fact that they happen in religious countries does not mean religion had no effect whatsoever. Things may happen to different degrees for example and the lesser degree may be effected by religion.

    And again, why are there consequences? Why create Hell? He has the power to not send souls to Hell. Why give people free will and punish them, eternally, for not doing with it what he wants you to do with it.

    You jump off a tall building. consequence? -you hit the ground.
    Why should God not just change gravity to allow you to fly?
    Or to allow everyone to be immortal and not experience pain?

    Lets not go into the why doesn't God change logic and reason so all your defeated suppositions are correct.
    And there's a reason why I've pointed out several times that the first three commandments are about worshipping him, because he tells people what is right or wrong, and he chooses to tell people that worshipping him is right, and not worshipping him is wrong.

    Oops! there you go changing logic and reason for God!
    Apparently earlier it was human nature that tribes behaved in certain ways or that people are scientifically predisposed to certain tendencies. How can you believe nature or the laws of science can influence a tendency to behave in a certain way but God can't? If God replaces nature then God is rigging the game? But if nature does it it is a scientific tendency?


  • #4319
    dannman4
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1 ✭dannman4


    theres gota be somtin out there cudn be just this world.


  • #4320
    Barr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    PDN wrote: »
    Not so. An example would be a judge who tries a case of a wounded war hero who has fallen on hard times and robbed from a supermarket in order to feed himself. The judge, being just, applies the law to the war hero just as he would anyone else and imposes a heavy fine. Then the judge, because he is merciful, pays the war hero's fine for him from his own pocket.

    And that is a faint picture of what God has done for us. He is totally just in imposing the penalty for sin - but then He comes in the Person of Jesus Christ and suffers the pains of hell in our stead.

    The judge you've described is just right up until the point he reaches into his own pocket and uses his own money to pay the fine. At that point, he ceases being just and becomes merciful. As I said, you can only be one or the other, not both. Also you omitted an important part so I'll FYP:

    An example would be a judge who tries a case of a wounded war hero who has fallen on hard times and robbed from a supermarket in order to feed himself. The judge, being just, applies the law to the war hero just as he would anyone else and imposes a heavy fine. Then the judge decrees that the war hero grovel at his feet and beg for forgiveness or he will impose the fine. So if:
    1) the war hero does so, the judge will forgive him and pay the fine for him (as you said.)

    2) the war hero refuses and the judge declares that the war hero pays this fine every week for the rest of his life.

    I feel that the above is a more accurate representation of the ''mercy and justice'' of God. He chooses when and who to be merciful to, i.e. those who worship him. That's not mercy, that's selectivity.


  • Advertisement
  • #4321
    Barr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    dannman4 wrote: »
    theres gota be somtin out there cudn be just this world.

    If you're referring to life on other planets, it is highly possible and probable. With the size of the universe and number of other galaxies, star systems, etc. then life in some form could exist on some other planet.


  • #4322
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Barr125 wrote: »
    The judge you've described is just right up until the point he reaches into his own pocket and uses his own money to pay the fine. At that point, he ceases being just and becomes merciful. As I said, you can only be one or the other, not both.

    Unfortunately you saying it doesn't make it any more logical.

    The judge acting mercifully does not lessen his being just by one iota. He has fulfilled justice by imposing the sentence of the law. Then, as a merciful person, he pays the fine on the war hero's behalf.

    If such a scenario took place in real life, and if you tried to get the judge disciplined or disbarred on the grounds he was unjust, you would be laughed out of the place.


  • #4323
    Barr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    PDN wrote: »
    Unfortunately you saying it doesn't make it any more logical.

    The judge acting mercifully does not lessen his being just by one iota. He has fulfilled justice by imposing the sentence of the law. Then, as a merciful person, he pays the fine on the war hero's behalf.

    If such a scenario took place in real life, and if you tried to get the judge disciplined or disbarred on the grounds he was unjust, you would be laughed out of the place.

    Yes, you're right, I would be laughed out. The problem is that that is not what God does. I already said what God actually does, a point you seem to have either ignored or just not referenced.

    Again, God is only ''merciful'' when you worship him. That is not mercy, that is selectivity and bribery.


  • #4324
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Barr125 wrote: »
    Yes, you're right, I would be laughed out. The problem is that that is not what God does.
    No, that is not the problem. You claimed that mercy and justice are mutually exclusive. I demonstrated that you were wrong. That is the problem.
    I already said what God actually does, a point you seem to have either ignored or just not referenced. Again, God is only ''merciful'' when you worship him. That is not mercy, that is selectivity and bribery.

    I ignored it because it gets rather tiresome correcting the same old misunderstandings that atheists have about Christian beliefs.

    God is merciful to all. If you accept his mercy then a change of heart occurs which results in you worshipping Him, but the worship is clearly a consequence of the mercy, not vice versa.


  • #4325
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    ALL outcomes of ALL choices may be different. Some may be the same. Assuming the decision maker is unaware of the change, changing the possible outcomes in no way affect the choice.

    In the case you mention where the decision maker is aware of a possible changing outcome based n interference, ff course one can use threat cohesion or inducement whether reward or bribery to affect a choice but that still isnt removing the free choice is it?


    Exactly! Im just pointing out that assuming in advance the thing you are trying to prove as a basis to prove it is circular reasoning.

    Any coersion eliminates or reduces free will, |I don't see how that can be disputed .

    I am not assuming anything in advance ISAW, I keep asking a question and am continuously asked for further clarification - thus all the examples.

    If you like just give me an answer - yes or no and why to my original question.
    Just me me an


  • #4326
    Barr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    PDN wrote: »
    No, that is not the problem. You claimed that mercy and justice are mutually exclusive. I demonstrated that you were wrong. That is the problem.


    I ignored it because it gets rather tiresome correcting the same old misunderstandings that atheists have about Christian beliefs.

    God is merciful to all. If you accept his mercy then a change of heart occurs which results in you worshipping Him, but the worship is clearly a consequence of the mercy, not vice versa.

    I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive, what I'm saying is that God cannot be fully one or the other if he is trying to be both.

    These misunderstandings arise because of different definitions applied by different denominations of Christianity. Some think Heaven and Hell are literal places, others think figuratively. Some believe God is vengeful, others think all-loving. It's hard to get right what God's own believers cannot define.

    Ok, what if I accept his mercy but choose not to worship him? And again, you're redefining mercy.


  • Advertisement
  • #4327
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Barr125 wrote: »
    Ok, what if I accept his mercy but choose not to worship him? And again, you're redefining mercy.

    You won't. If you genuinely accept his mercy then the Holy Spirit cleanses your heart. That means your sinful stubbornness against God will depart. Therefore you will freely worship Him. The worship is a consequence of sanctification, which is itself a consequence of justification, which is a consequence of accepting the offer of salvation.

    The key theological concept here is ordo salutis (order of salvation). If through ignorance or wilful misrepresentation you get it all back to front then you will leap to the false conclusions demonstrated in your previous posts.

    The problem with that, of course, is that then you think you are criticising the Christian position when, in fact, you are criticising a strawman that is radically different from Christian doctrine.


  • #4328
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Any coersion eliminates or reduces free will, |I don't see how that can be disputed .

    Now you are hedging. I mentioned coercion OR other influences like inducement or encouragement.

    Also you either have a free choice or you don't. what is a "reduced free choice" ?

    finally you mention eliminates OR reduces when you originally claimed ONLY eliminates.
    By saying "eliminates OR something else " you are hedging by adding in the option of "does not eliminate" But your whole point was it always DOES eliminated.

    which is it. Dos or does not? If it is "does not" then you whole point about removing free will is undermined.
    I am not assuming anything in advance ISAW, I keep asking a question and am continuously asked for further clarification - thus all the examples.

    If you like just give me an answer - yes or no and why to my original question.

    What original question?
    "does interference always remove free will" NO it does not necessarily!

    But that is my opinion. YOU were the one claiming interference does remove free will.


  • #4329
    Barr125
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    @PDN, can I pose a scenario to you, in vein of your judge analogy?

    Let's say God is at the pearly gates, and before him stand 2 men, waiting for his judgement.

    One is in his 30's and has died as a result of being executed for the rape and murder of several women. He was an evil, unemotional man for most of his life and only derived pleasure from his acts. In his final weeks in jail, before his execution, he begins reading a Bible given to him by the prison Chaplin and accepts Gods mercy, believes his soul cleansed, repents his sins and begins worshiping God in his final days.

    The other is an elderly atheist, who has spent his life being moral to all, giving money and time to help the poor, raising a family, loving them and caring for them. He became sick and spent his final days in hospital before passing away.

    Now, what is Gods judgement on these 2 individuals and, more importantly, you think that they both deserve these judgements?


  • #4330
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Now you are hedging. I mentioned coercion OR other influences like inducement or encouragement.

    Also you either have a free choice or you don't. what is a "reduced free choice" ?

    finally you mention eliminates OR reduces when you originally claimed ONLY eliminates.
    By saying "eliminates OR something else " you are hedging by adding in the option of "does not eliminate" But your whole point was it always DOES eliminated.

    which is it. Dos or does not? If it is "does not" then you whole point about removing free will is undermined.


    What original question?
    "does interference always remove free will" NO it does not necessarily!

    But that is my opinion. YOU were the one claiming interference does remove free will.

    No hedging ,I don't know what you are asking here ISAW in the light of my original question, I asked a question , I am still at the stage of just asking a question. Why not just answer it like I asked in my last post.

    All the rest is just confusion.


  • #4331
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    No hedging ,I don't know what you are asking here ISAW in the light of my original question, I asked a question , I am still at the stage of just asking a question. Why not just answer it like I asked in my last post.

    All the rest is just confusion.

    the confusion is you seem to think prayer being answered by the intercession means that free will is removed. It does not necessarily mean that.


  • Advertisement
  • #4332
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    the confusion is you seem to think prayer being answered by the intercession means that free will is removed. It does not necessarily mean that.

    I have never said otherwise ISAW, but your inclusion of ''necessarily'' means it can sometimes mean that- correct ?


  • #4333
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    I have never said otherwise ISAW, but your inclusion of ''necessarily'' means it can sometimes mean that- correct ?

    Yes an intervention CAN remove free choice. but that was not you point. You point was it always DOES remove it

    in 4314
    If the outcome of a free- willed choice/decision is changed from what it other wise would be and through no imput from the original decision maker by an outside agency- then is that any longer a choice made from free will ?

    Why would I show whether intervention=removal of free will when that is the guts of the question I am asking ?

    Question: Does intervention always remove free will.
    Answer: NO

    Happy?


  • #4334
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes an intervention CAN remove free choice. but that was not you point. You point was it always DOES remove it

    in 4314


    Question: Does intervention always remove free will.
    Answer: NO

    Happy?

    Please allow me to say what my point is ISAW, my point was not a point - it was a question - you are taking a post out of context, if you must please go back to my original question on prayer and at last I have got an answer. Now I have to think about it.


  • #4335
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Barr125 wrote: »
    @PDN, can I pose a scenario to you, in vein of your judge analogy?

    Let's say God is at the pearly gates, and before him stand 2 men, waiting for his judgement.

    One is in his 30's and has died as a result of being executed for the rape and murder of several women. He was an evil, unemotional man for most of his life and only derived pleasure from his acts. In his final weeks in jail, before his execution, he begins reading a Bible given to him by the prison Chaplin and accepts Gods mercy, believes his soul cleansed, repents his sins and begins worshiping God in his final days.

    The other is an elderly atheist, who has spent his life being moral to all, giving money and time to help the poor, raising a family, loving them and caring for them. He became sick and spent his final days in hospital before passing away.

    Now, what is Gods judgement on these 2 individuals and, more importantly, you think that they both deserve these judgements?

    In my opinion the rapist, if his repentance and conversion were genuine, will be received into the presence of God for eternity. Does he deserve that judgement? Absolutely not! But then neither do I deserve salvation, nor does Billy Graham, Mother Theresa or any other Christian. That's actually the whole concept of grace - it is entirely undeserved mercy.

    If the atheist has chosen to reject the Gospel of Christ, then I believe his judgement will be to spend eternity separated from God. That's what he chose - and his wish will be granted. Does he deserve that? Absolutely! Just as I, and Billy Graham, and Mother Theresa deserve that too.


  • #4336
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Please allow me to say what my point is ISAW, my point was not a point - it was a question - you are taking a post out of context, if you must please go back to my original question on prayer and at last I have got an answer. Now I have to think about it.

    You got the answer long before that in 4281
    and that was PDN drawing your attention to you been given the same answer BEFORE that but you went off and came back and still dint acknowledge the answer.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78440552&postcount=4281


  • #4337
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    In my opinion the rapist, if his repentance and conversion were genuine, will be received into the presence of God for eternity. Does he deserve that judgement? Absolutely not! But then neither do I deserve salvation, nor does Billy Graham, Mother Theresa or any other Christian. That's actually the whole concept of grace - it is entirely undeserved mercy.

    If the atheist has chosen to reject the Gospel of Christ, then I believe his judgement will be to spend eternity separated from God. That's what he chose - and his wish will be granted. Does he deserve that? Absolutely! Just as I, and Billy Graham, and Mother Theresa deserve that too.

    But you believe in a relatively benign Hell and not the fiery furnace type though ?


  • #4338
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Barr125: Your example with the atheist ignores the fact that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. Everyone has done wrong, even the "moral a lot of the time" atheist.

    The reality is though, that if I murdered someone, got away with it and lived a blameless life (as if that were even possible) afterwards. I'd still be a murderer.

    The reality is before God, I'm guilty. I've lied. I've dishonoured my parents. I've stolen. I've blasphemed. I've worshiped idols that I've put before God. I've coveted. Actually, every single one of the 10 commandments I've broken in one way or another. I've hated people - thus the same as murder according to Christ.

    I'm guilty, and I deserve God's wrath. It is only by God's grace that I'm saved. I deserve to be condemned to hell, much as all mankind does.


  • #4339
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    But you believe in a relatively benign Hell and not the fiery furnace type though ?

    No, that isn't actually true.

    I believe the flames and fire are probably symbolic, but also that they symbolise something far worse than literal fire.

    In eternity, I believe, people will see their sins as they really are. They won't make excuses any more, nor will they wink at their sins. They will realise, for the first time, exactly how horrible sin is. That self-realisation IMHO will be far worse than literal flames. To get an idea of how this might work, I suggest you try reading Therese Racquin by Emile Zola. It is a literary classic that describes how two murderers torment themselves by the guilty knowledge of what they have done.

    This is a very Jewish concept of hell, in line with Middle Eastern cultures that saw (and often still do see) shame and disgrace as something much harder to bear than physical pain. I realise it's a difficult concept for us materialistic westerners to get our heads round - but it's worth thinking about.

    I also think it's entirely possible that any suffering in hell will be self-created rather than created by God. I look back over history and see a long record of man's inhumanity to his fellow man. Stick all those who have rejected the Gospel in a world where no-one can physically die and what do you think will happen? Even if that world were beautiful, I think it highly likely that people would do what they've always done - they'll pollute it, empower monsters like Mao, Hitler, Genghis Khan and Torquemada, and this time there will be no merciful release to be found in their deaths (or your own). Sadly, because such a prospect gives me no pleasure whatsoever, I think that such a scenario would not require any intervention from God in literal flames.

    So, I strongly suspect that a place of literal fire would actually be more benign.


  • #4340
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    Barr125: Your example with the atheist ignores the fact that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. Everyone has done wrong, even the "moral a lot of the time" atheist.

    The reality is though, that if I murdered someone, got away with it and lived a blameless life (as if that were even possible) afterwards. I'd still be a murderer.

    The reality is before God, I'm guilty. I've lied. I've dishonoured my parents. I've stolen. I've blasphemed. I've worshiped idols that I've put before God. I've coveted. Actually, every single one of the 10 commandments I've broken in one way or another. I've hated people - thus the same as murder according to Christ.

    I'm guilty, and I deserve God's wrath. It is only by God's grace that I'm saved. I deserve to be condemned to hell, much as all mankind does.

    But with the utmost respect Philologos , this is one of the reasons why so many of us just cannot believe .


  • #4341
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    marienbad wrote: »
    But with the utmost respect Philologos , this is one of the reasons why so many of us just cannot believe .

    I know it is, but that's not out of anything rational. It's because you don't like the truth about wrongdoing and sin.

    When I became a Christian one of the most difficult things I would have to face is how would I turn away from sin and live for Jesus. Thankfully, I have His help in that, but there's a point where Christianity means that our lives must change.


  • Advertisement
  • #4342
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    philologos wrote: »
    I know it is, but that's not out of anything rational. It's because you don't like the truth about wrongdoing and sin.

    When I became a Christian one of the most difficult things I would have to face is how would I turn away from sin and live for Jesus. Thankfully, I have His help in that, but there's a point where Christianity means that our lives must change.

    But I could say it is because I already do love the truth and I have the courage to face the loneliness of it that I do not believe.


  • #4343
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    But I could say it is because I already do love the truth and I have the courage to face the loneliness of it that I do not believe.

    So is it true that interve,ntion does not remove free will?
    May i draw you r attention to the clerical child abuse thread?
    It has occurred to me that the only new news if that fr Brady didnt inform the parents of a Belfast Boy about abuse. Had Brady intervened maybe he would have allowed them to chose to go to the RUC. So intervention in that case would enable free will rather than remove it.


  • #4344
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    I know it is, but that's not out of anything rational. It's because you don't like the truth about wrongdoing and sin.

    Well no, I think it is because I have a hard time accepting any justice system that says because I lied to my parents (something they seem to have gotten over btw) I'm going to face an eternity of suffering and torture. That might be rational to you, but I would wonder how much that is based on self hatred than actual appeals to justice.

    The Christian concept of hell seem far more like a made up concept to scare people into joining a cult that conveniently offered people away of avoiding this eternal suffering but only if you accept that the cult leader was God.


  • #4345
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Zombrex wrote: »
    The Christian concept of hell seem far more like a made up concept to scare people into joining a cult that conveniently offered people away of avoiding this eternal suffering but only if you accept that the cult leader was God.

    Well yes, it's a carrot and stick thing. Because the idea of punishment in this life is so laughable that even a child can see that all they need to 'win' is a bigger stick, the concept of eternal punishment is used.
    However this dosn't mean that that is how it actualy works. We humans understand things in our own terms. So we get a cultural revenge fantasy as hell and a smug eternity for the good meek people.
    Best we have to go on but not the point anyway. Heaven and hell are not what faith is about.


  • #4346
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Well yes, it's a carrot and stick thing. Because the idea of punishment in this life is so laughable that even a child can see that all they need to 'win' is a bigger stick, the concept of eternal punishment is used.
    However this dosn't mean that that is how it actualy works. We humans understand things in our own terms. So we get a cultural revenge fantasy as hell and a smug eternity for the good meek people.
    Best we have to go on but not the point anyway. Heaven and hell are not what faith is about.

    Well that wasn't quite my point. The point is that this stuff is real or is it is made up. If you look at the "its real" option a lot of things make no sense. If you look at the "its made up" option suddenly a lot of things fall into place. A cult leader threatening eternal damnation unless you accept that he is the Jewish messiah and god and the only way to avoid damnation is entirely consistent with the manner cult leaders operate. Or put it another way, I would find it stranger if Jesus hadn't been making such claims.


  • #4347
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well that wasn't quite my point. The point is that this stuff is real or is it is made up. If you look at the "its real" option a lot of things make no sense. If you look at the "its made up" option suddenly a lot of things fall into place. A cult leader threatening eternal damnation unless you accept that he is the Jewish messiah and god and the only way to avoid damnation is entirely consistent with the manner cult leaders operate. Or put it another way, I would find it stranger if Jesus hadn't been making such claims.

    According to the bible he wasn't. the authorities made the claim he just didn't deny them. He didn't make a big issue of "i am god" or "do what i command or else i will punish you" . Yes he did claim it but rarely and not like cult leader today. And the reality of it is only stressed particularly coming up to and after his death and not in the earlier part of his three year Ministry.


  • #4348
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    You got the answer long before that in 4281
    and that was PDN drawing your attention to you been given the same answer BEFORE that but you went off and came back and still dint acknowledge the answer.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78440552&postcount=4281

    AS I say ISAW - read that post the the others again.


  • #4349
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    So is it true that interve,ntion does not remove free will?
    May i draw you r attention to the clerical child abuse thread?
    It has occurred to me that the only new news if that fr Brady didnt inform the parents of a Belfast Boy about abuse. Had Brady intervened maybe he would have allowed them to chose to go to the RUC. So intervention in that case would enable free will rather than remove it.

    Most of the time no - intervention does not remove free will , lots of times it does though.

    And by the way I am not saying intervention is a good or a bad thing , but in the Brady case it could have been a great thing , but sadly he bottled it. I will leave analysis of his motives up to you seeing as you seem to be the self appointed ''Fidei defensor'' in this particularl area.

    That is all I will say on that matter on this thread and as you have made that other thread a virtual no-go area for discussion I doubt you will see me bother posting there.


  • #4350
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    He didn't make a big issue of "i am god" or "do what i command or else i will punish you" . Yes he did claim it but rarely and not like cult leader today.

    Is it possible to be saved without believing Jesus was God?


  • Advertisement
  • #4351
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well no, I think it is because I have a hard time accepting any justice system that says because I lied to my parents (something they seem to have gotten over btw) I'm going to face an eternity of suffering and torture. That might be rational to you, but I would wonder how much that is based on self hatred than actual appeals to justice.

    The Christian concept of hell seem far more like a made up concept to scare people into joining a cult that conveniently offered people away of avoiding this eternal suffering but only if you accept that the cult leader was God.

    Let's not forget:

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
    AND
    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.

    So, just by 'thinking' you'd like to spend some quality time with your neighbours wife, or 'thinking' that you'd like your garden to look like your neighbours, it's HELL for you. Seems legit. :rolleyes:

    OR

    Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

    Get stuck in traffic, stand on some Lego or see your team hit the crossbar and it's Sin-city.

    Everybody is going to hell, by the church's standards. May aswell live your life, or not, it's your choice.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement