Creating God in one's own image.

[Adami]

The idea is that God told David what would happen if David continued doing what he was doing without an attempt to change.  It would be the equivalent of saying this thread is going nowhere.  That is true as of this moment, but can certainly change.

Yes, but if someone knows exactly how this thread will turn out....then saying that would be part of the plan to make it change. If the thread didn't turn out 1 specific way, that person wouldn't "know" what he knew. And since god has to "know" the future, it can't go any other possible way.

[GuineaPig]

 

[Ħ]

I don't know who told you that, but that's a lie.

I'm quickly losing interest in this discussion, with these kinds of arguments. You are personally so invested in the "truth" of your argument that everything to the opposite is clearly a "lie".

rumborak

If you were a bit more careful in reading my post with that statement, you would have seen that I played along with your claim.

And Adami,

1.  So?

2.  I wasn't talking about human rights either.  The fact is, philosophically, we can't know with 100% certainty whether or not we have free will or not.  There have been centuries of secular discourse on this.  Since we can't know with much certainty, you can't say with certainty that the Bible violates the fundamental truth of free will, since it really isn't that fundamental.  (at least from any capacity that we have to determine it's fundamentalism.)

[Adami]

1. Well I guess it doesn't matter since I'm not religous.

2. The argument "well who knows?" is pointless if you're going to try to debate. If you are going to say that knowing the future 100% of the time with 100% accuracy doesn't violate free will, you have to some how explain that. No one has yet. At least not in this thread.

[Philawallafox]

It's very doubtful the resurrection of Jesus was even believed in around the time of his death, as it's essentially missing in many of the oldest manuscripts. The whole part about Jesus talking to disciples after his resurrection was tacked on some point after.

rumborak

I can't seem to have two separate quotes in here so i'm going to have to multi-post sorry.

"The earliest manuscripts" being Mark. You're right it ends with the women seeing the tomb and running away in fear. that is *after* ch 16:6,7 the part where he talked to the apostles *In Mark* was tacked on afterwards. not so with Matthew, Luke of John. Matthew was written in the 50s (i think remembering from the top of my head) Luke-Acts was written in the...50s or 60s I think. might be 61? It ends with Paul in Rome during Nero's reign so between 54 and 68. It was before the great fire in 64 because Paul got killed as a result of that fire. Paul is very much alive at the end of Acts. John was written in before the destruction of the Temple so before AD 70. The latest clocks in at at the most 40 years after Jesus death and resurrection.

Stuff after the resurrection of Jesus isn't as important to Mark. His gospel climaxes at the 15:37-39. Mark is about the unfolding revelation of Jesus as the Christ/Messiah/Son of Man/Son of God etc. (Interesting tidbit: Jesus attributes the title Son of man to himself the most in Mark. it's referencing Daniel Chapter 7:13,14) so naturally the climax is Jesus dying, the temple veil being torn and the centurion (a non Jew) confessing Jesus as the "Son of God"

If you look at Matthew and luke and John they go into more depth after the resurrection.

If you look at the history of the church after Jesus Ascension in Acts You'll see how quickly belief in Jesus resurrection spread. It comes to a point in Acts (18:2) where the Emperor of Rome (Claudius, He was emperor from 47-51. 17-21 years after Jesus death) had expelled Jews and Christians (at this point Christians were regarded as a sect of Judaism) from Rome. This was during Pauls second missionary journey.

If you read 1 Corinthians 15 You find evidence of creeds already circulating in the Christian church. This was written in AD 55.

So Christianity *was* relevant 17-21 years after Jesus died. Indeed it had reached Rome so efficiently that 'Jews' had been expelled from Rome by that point. If you read Acts you see countless riots started against christians. Not only this but you also see time stamps in there like Acts 18:12 Gallio becoming Proconsul of Achaia. This is while Paul was again on his second journey.

As a side note. if you're going to use mass murder against christianity don't forget to hate your favourite romans who killed Christians for sport. It got to be such a fun past time for Romans they actually used us as torches or street lamps while they burned us alive. During the 1st century.

EDIT: stop posting so quickly I can't keep up

[Adami]

1. I REALLY doubt that the jews were expelled from rome because of the christians. I think a quick look at the history of my people will show that we get expelled a lot.

2. The romans killed people too? Yes, I know. Luckily I didn't see any ancient romans here claiming that their religion is clearly correct because no one shut them down.

[Philawallafox]

1. Well I guess it doesn't matter since I'm not religous.

2. The argument "well who knows?" is pointless if you're going to try to debate. If you are going to say that knowing the future 100% of the time with 100% accuracy doesn't violate free will, you have to some how explain that. No one has yet. At least not in this thread.

Ok Free will and God's sovereignty aren't mustually exclusive.

God can know what's going to happen without ordaining it to happen. Man doesn't know what's going to happen but somehow everything we do takes the world in the direction God wants it to go.

[Adami]

1. Well I guess it doesn't matter since I'm not religous.

2. The argument "well who knows?" is pointless if you're going to try to debate. If you are going to say that knowing the future 100% of the time with 100% accuracy doesn't violate free will, you have to some how explain that. No one has yet. At least not in this thread.

Ok Free will and God's sovereignty aren't mustually exclusive.

God can know what's going to happen without ordaining it to happen. Man doesn't know what's going to happen but somehow everything we do takes the world in the direction God wants it to go.

Once again, simply saying "it works" doesn't say anything. You have to some how back it up.

[Ħ]

It's very doubtful the resurrection of Jesus was even believed in around the time of his death, as it's essentially missing in many of the oldest manuscripts. The whole part about Jesus talking to disciples after his resurrection was tacked on some point after.

rumborak

I can't seem to have two separate quotes in here so i'm going to have to multi-post sorry.

"The earliest manuscripts" being Mark. You're right it ends with the women seeing the tomb and running away in fear. that is *after* ch 16:6,7 the part where he talked to the apostles *In Mark* was tacked on afterwards. not so with Matthew, Luke of John. Matthew was written in the 50s (i think remembering from the top of my head) Luke-Acts was written in the...50s or 60s I think. might be 61? It ends with Paul in Rome during Nero's reign so between 54 and 68. It was before the great fire in 64 because Paul got killed as a result of that fire. Paul is very much alive at the end of Acts. John was written in before the destruction of the Temple so before AD 70. The latest clocks in at at the most 40 years after Jesus death and resurrection.

Stuff after the resurrection of Jesus isn't as important to Mark. His gospel climaxes at the 15:37-39. Mark is about the unfolding revelation of Jesus as the Christ/Messiah/Son of Man/Son of God etc. (Interesting tidbit: Jesus attributes the title Son of man to himself the most in Mark. it's referencing Daniel Chapter 7:13,14) so naturally the climax is Jesus dying, the temple veil being torn and the centurion (a non Jew) confessing Jesus as the "Son of God"

If you look at Matthew and luke and John they go into more depth after the resurrection.

If you look at the history of the church after Jesus Ascension in Acts You'll see how quickly belief in Jesus resurrection spread. It comes to a point in Acts (18:2) where the Emperor of Rome (Claudius, He was emperor from 47-51. 17-21 years after Jesus death) had expelled Jews and Christians (at this point Christians were regarded as a sect of Judaism) from Rome. This was during Pauls second missionary journey.

If you read 1 Corinthians 15 You find evidence of creeds already circulating in the Christian church. This was written in AD 55.

So Christianity *was* relevant 17-21 years after Jesus died. Indeed it had reached Rome so efficiently that 'Jews' had been expelled from Rome by that point. If you read Acts you see countless riots started against christians. Not only this but you also see time stamps in there like Acts 18:12 Gallio becoming Proconsul of Achaia. This is while Paul was again on his second journey.

As a side note. if you're going to use mass murder against christianity don't forget to hate your favourite romans who killed Christians for sport. It got to be such a fun past time for Romans they actually used us as torches or street lamps while they burned us alive. During the 1st century.

You can take over for me bro, haha.  Anyway, I think as a small disclaimer, we should be open to the possibility that Mark in fact DID include the resurrection and post-resurrection appearances.  After doing some research, the "long ending" of Mark is only missing in two manuscripts, although they are the two earliest that we have.  From what I've read, there is indication of either possibility.

And as far as quoting, all you have to do is click "insert quote" to the right of each post in the Topic Summary on the "Post Reply" page.

[Ħ]

Adami, aside from offering the shoddy example of a movie (which is scripted, by the way, unlike real life), that's all you did.

[Adami]

Adami, aside from offering the shoddy example of a movie (which is scripted, by the way, unlike real life), that's all you did.

Ok here's this then.

A. We assume god is all knowing
B. We assume god is NEVER wrong about what it knows.
C. We assume god is able to know exactly what will happen at all times.
D. If god is never wrong, only what god knows will happen will happen. No other possibilities.
E. If god knows man will take path X, man will take path X, and can not under any circumstance take path Y.
F. Without the ability to take path Y, there is no choice, even if man thinks he is choosing path X, he could have never chosen anything else.
G. Because man can not do ANYTHING other than what god has pre-determined, there is no choice, only the illusion of choice.

[Philawallafox]

1. I REALLY doubt that the jews were expelled from rome because of the christians. I think a quick look at the history of my people will show that we get expelled a lot.

2. The romans killed people too? Yes, I know. Luckily I didn't see any ancient romans here claiming that their religion is clearly correct because no one shut them down.

well again I'll refer you to acts 18:2

Suetonius also notes that Jews were expelled from rome for causing riots at the name of "chrestus".

https://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-claudius-rolfe.html - go down to XXV and it's around 3/4 of the way into the paragraph.

[Adami]

1. I REALLY doubt that the jews were expelled from rome because of the christians. I think a quick look at the history of my people will show that we get expelled a lot.

2. The romans killed people too? Yes, I know. Luckily I didn't see any ancient romans here claiming that their religion is clearly correct because no one shut them down.

well again I'll refer you to acts 18:2

Suetonius also notes that Jews were expelled from rome for causing riots at the name of "chrestus".

https://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-claudius-rolfe.html - go down to XXV and it's around 3/4 of the way into the paragraph.

Doesn't it say that they were expelled for rioting because they didn't want to accept jesus? I don't see how that says that christians were popular enough to get expelled from anywhere at that point.

[Philawallafox]

Adami, aside from offering the shoddy example of a movie (which is scripted, by the way, unlike real life), that's all you did.

Ok here's this then.

A. We assume god is all knowing
B. We assume god is NEVER wrong about what it knows.
C. We assume god is able to know exactly what will happen at all times.
D. If god is never wrong, only what god knows will happen will happen. No other possibilities.
E. If god knows man will take path X, man will take path X, and can not under any circumstance take path Y.
F. Without the ability to take path Y, there is no choice, even if man thinks he is choosing path X, he could have never chosen anything else.
G. Because man can not do ANYTHING other than what god has pre-determined, there is no choice, only the illusion of choice.

again you're confusing foreknowledge and predestination. Two different things.

for the movie example.

We've all seen Star Wars. we know how it goes. We know that Luke is going to Kiss Leia and then find out that she's his sister. But we didn't direct/write/edit/produce the movies.

To address these points in that manner let's assume that "a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day" to God. He's outside time and can see time unfolding, rewind, fast forward or see it all in one instant. Sometimes he steps in and imposes himself on the situation and others he just watches. Adam and Eve eating the fruit is one of the times he just watched. He's all powerful. what makes you think a human concept like time supresses him?

[Adami]

Time isn't a human concept. And I never mentioned it.


As far as your movie example goes. Luke will always kiss leia, and get his hand cut off. Nothing could possibly change that because it was pre-determined. If it weren't pre-determined, and it hasn't happened yet, then no one would know about it, including god. If god knows what will happen, it MUST happen, that's predetermined.

Something that MUST happened is determined, if it hasn't happened yet, then it's pre-determined.

[Philawallafox]

1. I REALLY doubt that the jews were expelled from rome because of the christians. I think a quick look at the history of my people will show that we get expelled a lot.

2. The romans killed people too? Yes, I know. Luckily I didn't see any ancient romans here claiming that their religion is clearly correct because no one shut them down.

well again I'll refer you to acts 18:2

Suetonius also notes that Jews were expelled from rome for causing riots at the name of "chrestus".

https://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-claudius-rolfe.html - go down to XXV and it's around 3/4 of the way into the paragraph.

Doesn't it say that they were expelled for rioting because they didn't want to accept jesus? I don't see how that says that christians were popular enough to get expelled from anywhere at that point.

Did you read it? let me quote it for you. "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Another form of Christus; see Tert. Apol. 3 (at the end). It is uncertain whether Suetonius is guilty of an error in chronology or is referring to some Jew of that name. The former seems probable because of the absence of "quodam". Tacitus, Ann. 15.44, uses the correct form, Christus, and states that he was executed in the reign of Tiberius], he expelled them from Rome."

There's even a little commentary in there for you. Tert. refers to Tertullian...he was second century i think and I don't remember when Tacitus was.

[j]

A. We assume god is all knowing
B. We assume god is NEVER wrong about what it knows.
C. We assume god is able to know exactly what will happen at all times.
D. If god is never wrong, only what god knows will happen will happen. No other possibilities.
E. If god knows man will take path X, man will take path X, and can not under any circumstance take path Y.
F. Without the ability to take path Y, there is no choice, even if man thinks he is choosing path X, he could have never chosen anything else.
G. Because man can not do ANYTHING other than what god has pre-determined, there is no choice, only the illusion of choice.

Well, point E is where the question arises.

If there were an all-knowing God that existed outside of time, how would his *knowledge* of everything past, present, and future necessarily preclude free will?  God knows that man will take path X because of his point of reference.  For all practical purposes, man has ALREADY taken path X, so it's a foregone conclusion.

I think your first question was much better: If God knew how all of this would play out, he was effectively damning a large swath of his so-called "beloved creations" to hell from the outset.  Even if it's argued that it was a necessary consequence of giving man free will, why not just forget about free will and bring everyone to eternal paradise?

-J

[Philawallafox]

Time isn't a human concept. And I never mentioned it.


As far as your movie example goes. Luke will always kiss leia, and get his hand cut off. Nothing could possibly change that because it was pre-determined. If it weren't pre-determined, and it hasn't happened yet, then no one would know about it, including god. If god knows what will happen, it MUST happen, that's predetermined.

Something that MUST happened is determined, if it hasn't happened yet, then it's pre-determined.

Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.

If time isn't a human concept then who created it?

And as far as your rebuttle goes, yes I know. We know it will always get it cut off because we've seen it happen. again though: Even though we know it will happen we didn't ORDAIN it to happen. We just know it will. We didn't priduce the movies.

[Philawallafox]

Edit: sorry, dodgy net. accidental double post.

[Philawallafox]

A. We assume god is all knowing
B. We assume god is NEVER wrong about what it knows.
C. We assume god is able to know exactly what will happen at all times.
D. If god is never wrong, only what god knows will happen will happen. No other possibilities.
E. If god knows man will take path X, man will take path X, and can not under any circumstance take path Y.
F. Without the ability to take path Y, there is no choice, even if man thinks he is choosing path X, he could have never chosen anything else.
G. Because man can not do ANYTHING other than what god has pre-determined, there is no choice, only the illusion of choice.

Well, point E is where the question arises.

If there were an all-knowing God that existed outside of time, how would his *knowledge* of everything past, present, and future necessarily preclude free will?  God knows that man will take path X because of his point of reference.  For all practical purposes, man has ALREADY taken path X, so it's a foregone conclusion.

I think your first question was much better: If God knew how all of this would play out, he was effectively damning a large swath of his so-called "beloved creations" to hell from the outset.  Even if it's argued that it was a necessary consequence of giving man free will, why not just forget about free will and bring everyone to eternal paradise?

-J

He was 'letting' man get what he deserves. God is Just.
At the same time he 'chose' some people (not based on merit of works) to not suffer his punishment. God is Loving.

To this end God sent Jesus to atone for our sin so that we could be seen through his righteousness.

Humanity isn't damned as an unescapable result of having free will. Humanity is damned because despite having a properly free will they chose to reject God and continue to do this to this day and will until God chooses to end this age.

[j]

But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself".  Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell.  We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.

-J

[Ħ]

But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself".  Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell.  We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.

-J

That's the equivalent of arresting a serial killer's parents of being at fault for giving birth to him.

[Adami]

Time isn't a human concept. And I never mentioned it.


As far as your movie example goes. Luke will always kiss leia, and get his hand cut off. Nothing could possibly change that because it was pre-determined. If it weren't pre-determined, and it hasn't happened yet, then no one would know about it, including god. If god knows what will happen, it MUST happen, that's predetermined.

Something that MUST happened is determined, if it hasn't happened yet, then it's pre-determined.

Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.

If time isn't a human concept then who created it?

And as far as your rebuttle goes, yes I know. We know it will always get it cut off because we've seen it happen. again though: Even though we know it will happen we didn't ORDAIN it to happen. We just know it will. We didn't priduce the movies.

I don't care about ordaining it or not. It's a set path, there's no possible way to deviate from it.

Who created time? It's a relative law of physics. No one created it. It's just there.

[Philawallafox]

But God always knew that IF he created man and gave him free will, he would reject him and thus "damn himself".  Yet here we are, most of us on our way to hell.  We did not exist until God created us, so there were no temporal limitations.

-J

You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

Humanity's downfall didn't happen *because* of free will. It happened *despite* free will.

By the way I'm not stopping you from you know...Stopping yourself from going to Hell here. Jesus death ensured the free gift of salvation was available to all. It's your responsibility to accept that though.

[Philawallafox]

Time isn't a human concept. And I never mentioned it.


As far as your movie example goes. Luke will always kiss leia, and get his hand cut off. Nothing could possibly change that because it was pre-determined. If it weren't pre-determined, and it hasn't happened yet, then no one would know about it, including god. If god knows what will happen, it MUST happen, that's predetermined.

Something that MUST happened is determined, if it hasn't happened yet, then it's pre-determined.

Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.

If time isn't a human concept then who created it?

And as far as your rebuttle goes, yes I know. We know it will always get it cut off because we've seen it happen. again though: Even though we know it will happen we didn't ORDAIN it to happen. We just know it will. We didn't priduce the movies.

I don't care about ordaining it or not. It's a set path, there's no possible way to deviate from it.

Who created time? It's a relative law of physics. No one created it. It's just there.

Nah. If I say that the speed of Light is 3 glarbles per poglook I would be right. It's my own measurement by it's right.
Time is a standard of measurement. Not a law of Physics my friend.

[Ħ]

You're making a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

I can already tell you are going to be great in P/R.  Don't let anyone bring you down.

[Adami]

Nah. If I say that the speed of Light is 3 glarbles per poglook I would be right. It's my own measurement by it's right.
Time is a standard of measurement. Not a law of Physics my friend.

It's very hard to take this post seriously, but I'll try.

Whether you use the term.....glarbles or poglooks, or minutes, or light years...it doesn't matter. You're still measuring the same thing, you're just choosing your units of measurement. Time is the abstract of which you're measuring, not the units of measurement or the results of said measurment.

You can say the same thing about distance, but I doubt you'd say distance is a human creation as well.

[Ħ]

I'm gonna have to agree with Adami on this one.  Although, with Einstein's theory of relativity, it's hard to know if either time or distance really exist outside from human perspective.

[Philawallafox]

Nah. If I say that the speed of Light is 3 glarbles per poglook I would be right. It's my own measurement by it's right.
Time is a standard of measurement. Not a law of Physics my friend.

It's very hard to take this post seriously, but I'll try.

Whether you use the term.....glarbles or poglooks, or minutes, or light years...it doesn't matter. You're still measuring the same thing, you're just choosing your units of measurement. Time is the abstract of which you're measuring, not the units of measurement or the results of said measurment.

You can say the same thing about distance, but I doubt you'd say distance is a human creation as well.

I never said you couldn't laugh lol.

You mean you doubt I wouldn't. Distance is a measurement. I'm not denying they exist I'm saying that Humans created time and distance to measure things. Distance is a measurement of the gaps between things. Time is a measurement of the gaps between events.

God doesn't need either of these because he's everywhere all the time so there's no gaps. This is the thrust of my argument. An infinite being doesn't need measurements because measurements are for the gaps seen by *finite* beings.

[Adami]

I don't consider time to be a measurment, I consider time to be the thing we measure.

We age, everything (except Madonna) ages. That's time working. We just make up the measurement aspect of it.

[Perpetual Change]

1. Jesus only fulfilled the prophecy if you start reading the prophecies in extremely specific odd ways.

2. I didn't say anything about human rights. I said free will. You can't say "well that might not be true". You kind of have to explain. I explained my point of view, and so far the only response has been "yea...well I don't see it that way". You have to have a reason.

3. I like bullet point posts in cases like this, so sue me

4. ??

5. Prophet.

I SEE WHAT U DID THAR

[Philawallafox]

I don't consider time to be a measurment, I consider time to be the thing we measure.

We age, everything (except Madonna) ages. That's time working. We just make up the measurement aspect of it.

 

How can you prove that everything ages? What is the effect of time on a diamond? does it become dull? Does it get...smaller? I dunno how does it change? It certainly doesn't experience any changes as far as I know. Does time stop for that diamond once it reaches the stage of being a diamond?

[Adami]

I'm sorry Phil. It's clear you don't understand the basics of science and I really don't want to explain them to you. I'll let one of the actual scientists here do that, if they feel the need.

If you want to call this a victory for you, feel free. Enjoy it.

[Philawallafox]

I'm sorry Phil. It's clear you don't understand the basics of science and I really don't want to explain them to you. I'll let one of the actual scientists here do that, if they feel the need.

If you want to call this a victory for you, feel free. Enjoy it.

You know you're right. I only graduated High school doing Physics and Chemistry. How about you explain to me with proofs how time is an absolute and therefore a constant. Rather than just saying "you're wrong because i think everything ages"

[Adami]

I never said time was absolute, in fact I stated that it was relative.