Which bible do you Read?

[Falconer02]

You obviously have not read (or most likely ignored) my first post in this thread.Check out the second paragraph.

(for ref)
"I think there is something of a misconception about Hell.People tend to think people simply "burn in Hell" at the same rate or level.But again,God is always just and merciful.The Bible talks about different levels of reward and so are there different degrees of punishment.An atheist,for example who is generally a "good" person,will still have to suffer for their sins,because they had not accepted the Grace of Jesus Christ's Atonement for their sins.However I'm sure the suffering of someone who committed "minor" infractions will be nothing when compared to the suffering of someone like Hitler,who caused the death of millions and the suffering of many millions more."

Where does it say there are specific 'levels' of punishment and reward? I don't remember and I can't find anything based upon scripture.
http://www.gotquestions.org/levels-heaven.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Divine-Comedy-Dantes-Inferno.html

This is another example of your double-speak with attempt to cloud the issue.The fact that God KNOWS how events play out,is not in indication that all things are inevitable.He gives us free will to make the choice ourselves.

Explain how knowing things before they happen constitutes for free will-- more simply explain how if choices are already known beforehand, how are they free choices?

That's why it's a waste of my time to post facts to which you've already made up your mind about.Your bias has determined your mind set.There's no point debating facts with an old school obscurantist.

You just don't know what you're talking about since you are obviously too lazy to argue. Why are you even in D+D if you're just going to sit back and call me biased and say you're right and then fold your arms?

I've done my share of research as well.Your attempt to prove God does not exist by throwing out "my facts are better than yours" are again a waste of time

No educated rebuttal? Just personal attacks? Okay. See ya!  

[Getinonthis]

My point exactly Jedi. 

This is another example of your double-speak with attempt to cloud the issue.The fact that God KNOWS how events play out,is not in indication that all things are inevitable.He gives us free will to make the choice ourselves.

"Because those 'facts' are constantly being proven to be false information and blatant lies because of what reality shows."
 
That's why it's a waste of my time to post facts to which you've already made up your mind about.Your bias has determined your mind set.There's no point debating facts with an old school obscurantist.

Everyone, Christians as well as yourself makes choices though they may differ, (but did you notice your definition reads "apparent ability") doesn't apparent mean Appearing as such but not necessarily so?

Like I said before that free will resides between rules/governments/laws that are already in place throughout history and now, just as God's precepts does not fluctuate

Yes, but rules/govt's/laws have the ability to change and do so all the time-- all they need is a push. People follow them because they usually make sense during that course in time. Change is the key word here-- your beliefs have no power to change since it would go against your god's will and would crumble the foundation of your beliefs. It's a one-way path with steel hallways and therefore comparing them is not a logical example.

Like I said before your Moral if to deceive, your Motive is clearly to instigate rebellion against God and not to come to a conclusion in terms of God's existence, free will, Judgment or any such discussions. So many people have posted efficient explanations in terms of these topic but your Bias preconceptions, time after time again has proven that your mindset will never give room to anything but "your ideals."

Thus creating a one way path filled with insolence and complete/utter refusal to recognize or God.
All this as well as your claims of possessing a more reasonable intellect that God himself, desiring to change His rule to adjust to your sinful state,
Brings back a reminder...

"Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

                                              "And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." -Luke 10:18

[Falconer02]

Like I said before your Moral if to deceive, your Motive is clearly to instigate rebellion against God and not to come to a conclusion in terms of God's existence, free will, Judgment or any such discussions. So many people have posted efficient explanations in terms of these topic but your Bias preconceptions, time after time again has proven that your mindset will never give room to anything but "your ideals."

My ideals/questions are based within reality and I've constantly shown that-- if I haven't, please show me where. Also show me where someone has posted an efficient explanation because you have not made any point that does not equate to more than " A + (can't explain B so I'll shove it aside and explain something else) = C! And that's why you're decieved!"

Thus creating a one way path filled with insolence and complete/utter refusal to recognize or God.

*facepalm* Again, I'm more than willing to acknowledge something that you can post proof of existence or explain in a rational manner. That is not refusing. You on the other hand just have completely and constantly failed to do so and are now backing away, putting words in my mouth, and trying to look like the better person here as you had originally done earlier in the thread. You have posted nothing but emotional pleas and false analogies and I've called you out on them-- but you are now brushing over that!

Remember, this is "Debate and Discuss", not "Dogma and Disdain". If you can't do the first set, you shouldn't really be in an argument.

All this as well as your claims of possessing a more reasonable intellect that God himself, desiring to change His rule to adjust to your sinful state,

Cursing me to hell by reading your bible is a pretty shallow trait for someone who believes they're a decent christian. I'm in a sinful state though? What have I done to damage you or your god? All I'm doing is questioning things here and showing massive flaws in your reasoning. Please tell me why that's wrong-- after all, you believe your loving god allowed me to think this way, didn't he? To question things and find unexplained holes? And show me why I'm wrong for doing so without falling into 2D/Orwellian thinking.

[Getinonthis]

after all, you believe your loving god allowed me to think this way, didn't he?

By the terms "YOU BELIEVE" and "ALLOWED," you mean:
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Rom1:28-32

To question things and find unexplained holes? And show me why I'm wrong for doing so without falling into 2D/Orwellian thinking.

I did not resort to being too sophisticate or Scholastic, but to give you very simple answers that even a 5yr old could understand, but that would not suffice, because you're already bent on your own preconceptions. I'll give you one final answer "Mr victim." I've given you biblical and I'll give you factual.

God (Jehovah) -The supernatural being conceived as the "perfect" and omnipotent and omniscient "originator" and "ruler of the universe;" the object of worship.

Rules are a principle or condition that customarily governs behavior; Prescribed guide for conduct or action; A basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct.
Now Jehovah's rules are "very simple and basic" even a 5yr could understand them, much less you who have been calling Christians brain-dead in their thinking (2D - outdated), which show that someone of your vast intellect would know this.

To question and find unexplained holes in God's rules (read the definition rule again) is to say you have the wisdom to correct God (read the definition of God again), and if you don't find that to be WRONG" then you fall into the Romans 1:28-32 definition above.

                               

These are God's rules/precepts/laws/judgments.

 

[Falconer02]

I did not resort to being too sophisticate or Scholastic, but to give you very simple answers that even a 5yr old could understand, but that would not suffice, because you're already bent on your own preconceptions. I'll give you one final answer "Mr victim." I've given you biblical and I'll give you factual.

Uhm...I'm not playing the victim card here as I don't believe in your ancient beliefs-- I'm immune here. I just apply myself into your beliefs as an example to show a problem. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from and insert info on problems that you hover over. After all, this is a debate. You can't think without putting an ancient book before your intellectual prowess. I would like to see you attempt the opposite if that's not asking too much.

did not resort to being too sophisticate or Scholastic, but to give you very simple answers that even a 5yr old could understand, but that would not suffice, because you're already bent on your own preconceptions.

I'm simply going by what you are showing me and applying it to reality. For instance every example you've given I've applied realism to it and shown faults. If you're calling me biased due to my own preconceptions, you're really just praising delusional thinking.

God (Jehovah) -The supernatural being conceived as the "perfect" and omnipotent and omniscient "originator" and "ruler of the universe;" the object of worship.

Alright! Going back to the original question yet again-- Why would a god display rules to his children when, due to his powers, he already knows who will obey and disobey them? Right here you say he is mega-powerful so he knows everyones outcome. Unless he is imperfect, please explain how free will is allowed with these powers.

To question and find unexplained holes in God's rules (read the definition rule again) is to say you have the wisdom to correct God (read the definition of God again)

I wouldn't have the power to correct him considering he already knows everything, would I? I'm looking for an explanation which Christianity (and you) has failed to answer.

[Getinonthis]

Hey Falc, how are you man? I pray all I well with you.
Yet again after answering your question, you've gone right back to the beginning and back again to the answered question.
Since we're not getting anywhere here's a movie that'll help.

             "THE ENCOUNTER"

Synopsis
It has someone asking the same questions you're asking and someone playing God and answering them. While I doubt you'll refuse the opportunity to question the results of your answers, even more. I still desire that your soul makes it into Heaven so Check out this movie.

             "THE ENCOUNTER"

[Falconer02]

Yet again after answering your question, you've gone right back to the beginning and back again to the answered question.
Since we're not getting anywhere here's a movie that'll help.

You never answered my questions. You just danced around them and threw irrational/problematic examples my way.

While I doubt you'll refuse the opportunity to question the results of your answers, even more. I still desire that your soul makes it into Heaven so Check out this movie.

Right after you read "The Upside of Irrationality" by Dan Ariely! Only 27.99!!!

[falcon9]

[quote-by other dude]You obviously have not read (or most likely ignored) my first post in this thread.Check out the second paragraph.

(for ref)
"I think there is something of a misconception about Hell.People tend to think people simply "burn in Hell" at the same rate or level.But again,God is always just and merciful.The Bible talks about different levels of reward and so are there different degrees of punishment.An atheist,for example who is generally a "good" person,will still have to suffer for their sins,because they had not accepted the Grace of Jesus Christ's Atonement for their sins.However I'm sure the suffering of someone who committed "minor" infractions will be nothing when compared to the suffering of someone like Hitler,who caused the death of millions and the suffering of many millions more."

Where does it say there are specific 'levels' of punishment and reward? I don't remember and I can't find anything based upon scripture.
http://www.gotquestions.org/levels-heaven.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/Divine-Comedy-Dantes-Inferno.html

Well, he did remark that he was "sure the suffering of someone who committed "minor" infractions will be nothing when compared to the suffering of someone like Hitler ..." so, since he's sure, it must be true. 

This is another example of your double-speak with attempt to cloud the issue.The fact that God KNOWS how events play out,is not in indication that all things are inevitable.He gives us free will to make the choice ourselves.

Explain how knowing things before they happen constitutes for free will-- more simply explain how if choices are already known beforehand, how are they free choices?

For some as yet inexplicable reason, those folks seem to be contending, via implication, that their "god" knows what choices are going to be made in advance and 'lets' people make them anyway, thus presenting the illusion of free will without the actual substance of it.

That's why it's a waste of my time to post facts to which you've already made up your mind about.Your bias has determined your mind set.There's no point debating facts with an old school obscurantist.

You just don't know what you're talking about since you are obviously too lazy to argue. Why are you even in D+D if you're just going to sit back and call me biased and say you're right and then fold your arms?[/quote]

I've noticed a few instances of that stance too.  The humurously-ironic part is that those folks often accuse others of being "obscurantist", "pseudo-intellectual", rhetorical and any number of ad hominem to avoid countering valid opposing arguments.  As you've mentioned, this is D+D, (which stands for debate + discuss, not derrogatory + dementia).

I've done my share of research as well.Your attempt to prove God does not exist by throwing out "my facts are better than yours" are again a waste of time

No educated rebuttal? Just personal attacks? Okay. See ya!  
[/quote]

I'd used a theoretical invisible unicorn in your garage as an analogy of the futility of attempting to prove or disprove a negative assertion however, it may have been too subtle since they keep missing the inference.  Maybe it should be demanded that they prove Santa, the tooth fairy, elves, an enroute invading alien fleet, Morrigan, Anubis, Thor or Apollo _doesn't_ exist?

[AngelBaby234]

                  THERES ONLY ONE BIBLE I READ & THATS THE HOLY BIBLE THE NKJV

[Falconer02]

Well, he did remark that he was "sure the suffering of someone who committed "minor" infractions will be nothing when compared to the suffering of someone like Hitler ..." so, since he's sure, it must be true

I think JediJohnnie is actually a Sith Lord since he's definitely talking like one.

For some as yet inexplicable reason, those folks seem to be contending, via implication, that their "god" knows what choices are going to be made in advance and 'lets' people make them anyway, thus presenting the illusion of free will without the actual substance of it.

That's what I've been trying to present to them but they keep passing over it with faulty examples and then saying I don't understand it when I point out the basic faults.  

I've noticed a few instances of that stance too.  The humurously-ironic part is that those folks often accuse others of being "obscurantist", "pseudo-intellectual", rhetorical and any number of ad hominem to avoid countering valid opposing arguments.  As you've mentioned, this is D+D, (which stands for debate + discuss, not derrogatory + dementia).

Well said. This pretty much sums up the religious crowd on the forum-- I've seen it countless times.

I'd used a theoretical invisible unicorn in your garage as an analogy of the futility of attempting to prove or disprove a negative assertion however, it may have been too subtle since they keep missing the inference.  Maybe it should be demanded that they prove Santa, the tooth fairy, elves, an enroute invading alien fleet, Morrigan, Anubis, Thor or Apollo _doesn't_ exist?

It is a great example to compare, but with all the others (Santa, Elves, Alien fleet) I've noticed they get offended since they keep this idea of a 'loving' deity so close to their hearts. Even though those examples are valid, I just go with the monster in my garage since it's just poking fun at myself. Unless the opposing argument is full of personal attacks (and believe me-- you WILL see a lot of menacingly evil ones shot your way if you stay here in d+d long enough), I usually avoid using those examples.

[jcribb16]

Well, he did remark that he was "sure the suffering of someone who committed "minor" infractions will be nothing when compared to the suffering of someone like Hitler ..." so, since he's sure, it must be true

I think JediJohnnie is actually a Sith Lord since he's definitely talking like one.

For some as yet inexplicable reason, those folks seem to be contending, via implication, that their "god" knows what choices are going to be made in advance and 'lets' people make them anyway, thus presenting the illusion of free will without the actual substance of it.

That's what I've been trying to present to them but they keep passing over it with faulty examples and then saying I don't understand it when I point out the basic faults.  

I've noticed a few instances of that stance too.  The humurously-ironic part is that those folks often accuse others of being "obscurantist", "pseudo-intellectual", rhetorical and any number of ad hominem to avoid countering valid opposing arguments.  As you've mentioned, this is D+D, (which stands for debate + discuss, not derrogatory + dementia).

Well said. This pretty much sums up the religious crowd on the forum-- I've seen it countless times.

I'd used a theoretical invisible unicorn in your garage as an analogy of the futility of attempting to prove or disprove a negative assertion however, it may have been too subtle since they keep missing the inference.  Maybe it should be demanded that they prove Santa, the tooth fairy, elves, an enroute invading alien fleet, Morrigan, Anubis, Thor or Apollo _doesn't_ exist?

It is a great example to compare, but with all the others (Santa, Elves, Alien fleet) I've noticed they get offended since they keep this idea of a 'loving' deity so close to their hearts. Even though those examples are valid, I just go with the monster in my garage since it's just poking fun at myself. Unless the opposing argument is full of personal attacks (and believe me-- you WILL see a lot of menacingly evil ones shot your way if you stay here in d+d long enough), I usually avoid using those examples.

"Listen" to both of you.  This whole post is nothing but a cut down of the "religious crowd," "derrogatory + dementia," "I've noticed they get offended since they keep this idea of a 'loving' deity so close to their hearts," etc.  If it was truly debate and discuss, then the Christian's arguments would be deemed just as worthy as your arguments.  I don't consider that d & d with what you are consistently purporting Christians to be doing.   

[Falconer02]

Listen" to both of you.  This whole post is nothing but a cut down of the "religious crowd," "derrogatory + dementia," "I've noticed they get offended since they keep this idea of a 'loving' deity so close to their hearts," etc.  If it was truly debate and discuss, then the Christian's arguments would be deemed just as worthy as your arguments.  I don't consider that d & d with what you are consistently purporting Christians to be doing.    

On the contrary, it's what the Christians have been doing all this time. The problem with the Christian's arguments is that they really don't have an argument in the first place due to the lack of proofs (or what they deem proofs are ridiculous and ignorant of how things actually are). When put up against a contradiction/problem, most of the time they hover right over it and when we call them on it, they say that the opposition does not understand whatever is being discussed which is just a childish fallacy. This has been demonstrated countless times-- even in this thread alone! There can't really be a debate when the opposing side is constantly talking naive/ignorant nonsense and that's exactly where we are in this thread.

(Though the Sith Lord comment is just a joke though-- I was just being an *bleep*)

[CARRIE71818]

king james version.

[jcribb16]

Listen" to both of you.  This whole post is nothing but a cut down of the "religious crowd," "derrogatory + dementia," "I've noticed they get offended since they keep this idea of a 'loving' deity so close to their hearts," etc.  If it was truly debate and discuss, then the Christian's arguments would be deemed just as worthy as your arguments.  I don't consider that d & d with what you are consistently purporting Christians to be doing.    

On the contrary, it's what the Christians have been doing all this time. The problem with the Christian's arguments is that they really don't have an argument in the first place due to the lack of proofs (or what they deem proofs are ridiculous and ignorant of how things actually are). When put up against a contradiction/problem, most of the time they hover right over it and when we call them on it, they say that the opposition does not understand whatever is being discussed which is just a childish fallacy. This has been demonstrated countless times-- even in this thread alone! When put up against a contradiction/problem, most of the time they hover right over it and when we call them on it, they say that the opposition does not understand whatever is being discussed which is just a childish fallacy.(Though the Sith Lord comment is just a joke though-- I was just being an *bleep*)

There can't be a debate either when the opposing side is constantly saying: 

1. "The problem with the Christian's arguments is that they really don't have an argument in the first place due to the lack of proofs (or what they deem proofs are ridiculous and ignorant of how things actually are)."
2. "When put up against a contradiction/problem, most of the time they hover right over it and when we call them on it, they say that the opposition does not understand whatever is being discussed which is just a childish fallacy."
3. "When put up against a contradiction/problem, most of the time they hover right over it and when we call them on it, they say that the opposition does not understand whatever is being discussed which is just a childish fallacy."

The point is, is that this particular debate, or any debate between Christians and athiests, involves a much deeper underlying problem than a surfacy debate can agree to disagree on.  There are deeper issues, as you know, and no matter how much debating goes on, there will never be an ending to it.  But it's challenging to take part in a debate and give my side the best I can with the beliefs I have.  I still believe in the Lord, no matter what you or any other nonbeliever or athiest says, and it doesn't matter to me what you think.  It's important to me where my faith lies and I am set in "concrete" with my decision.

[falcon9]

Listen" to both of you.  This whole post is nothing but a cut down of the "religious crowd," "derrogatory + dementia," "I've noticed they get offended since they keep this idea of a 'loving' deity so close to their hearts," etc.  If it was truly debate and discuss, then the Christian's arguments would be deemed just as worthy as your arguments.  I don't consider that d & d with what you are consistently purporting Christians to be doing.    

On the contrary, it's what the Christians have been doing all this time. The problem with the Christian's arguments is that they really don't have an argument in the first place due to the lack of proofs (or what they deem proofs are ridiculous and ignorant of how things actually are). When put up against a contradiction/problem, most of the time they hover right over it and when we call them on it, they say that the opposition does not understand whatever is being discussed which is just a childish fallacy. This has been demonstrated countless times-- even in this thread alone! When put up against a contradiction/problem, most of the time they hover right over it and when we call them on it, they say that the opposition does not understand whatever is being discussed which is just a childish fallacy.(Though the Sith Lord comment is just a joke though-- I was just being an *bleep*)

There can't be a debate either when the opposing side is constantly saying: 

1. "The problem with the Christian's arguments is that they really don't have an argument in the first place due to the lack of proofs (or what they deem proofs are ridiculous and ignorant of how things actually are)."

So, you object to being shown precisely how the xtian "argments" are lacking the essential forms of a debate, (which is _not_ merely an exchange of superficial 'opinions'; a debate is nominally intended  to resent a premise, (and opposing argument's premise), supportive evidence/reasoning for the premise presented and offer reasoned conclusion deduced from valid arguments.  If one 'side' of a debate instead insists upon attempting to barricade themselves behind "faith" & "belief" so that they don't 'have to' present any evidence for what amounts to an opinion wihout foundational basis, (that would be the 'religious' barricade), then it becomes less of a debate and more of a discussion.  Such discussions often stall due to the disparity between basleess opinions and a more reasoned argument which is not based upon "faith".

2. "When put up against a contradiction/problem, most of the time they hover right over it and when we call them on it, they say that the opposition does not understand whatever is being discussed which is just a childish fallacy."

3. "When put up against a contradiction/problem, most of the time they hover right over it and when we call them on it, they say that the opposition does not understand whatever is being discussed which is just a childish fallacy."

#2 & #3 are duplicated quotes however, the following response does not directly address these contentions:

The point is, is that this particular debate, or any debate between Christians and athiests, involves a much deeper underlying problem than a surfacy debate can agree to disagree on.  There are deeper issues, as you know, and no matter how much debating goes on, there will never be an ending to it.  But it's challenging to take part in a debate and give my side the best I can with the beliefs I have.  I still believe in the Lord, no matter what you or any other nonbeliever or athiest says, and it doesn't matter to me what you think.

 

If you're going to raise vague and unspecified "underlying issues", ((as opposed to avoiding addressing the specific which _were_ raised above), then you'll have to be more specific and less vague about them.

It's important to me where my faith lies and I am set in "concrete" with my decision.

This last quoted senence is the most revealing of all so far; it indicates no possibility that reason can pursuade against a choice of "faith" when those are the options available.  I submit this stance to "Abrupt" as evidence presented by a professed "christian" of making an irrational choice stemming from an irrational, ("faith"), basis.