Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 ?

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?

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.

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.

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

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 ?

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.