It could also be said another way. The test shows a person for what they are, and the test comes from God -- therefore God could be said to have hardened their heart by means of the test. Or in the case of Thessalonians, by sending a delusion that will be believed by those who would not believe the truth. It leaves no middle ground. What do you think Adstar? PS. I don't think the consequences of Calvinistic determinism is so atrocious if you accept them fully and not just provisionally: if things are determined to such a complete degree, the can be no moral evaluation... things simply "are as they should be," by all accounts. This may seem rejectionable, but our emotional reaction is only justifiable under a different argument: that everyone should have a say in the matter. It seems to me Paul is advancing both arguments: 1) that we DO have a say in the matter, BUT 2) that God was, is, and will be the sovereign and unquestionable authority who has the final say: His will be done.
I agree the test shows a person for what they are. But does not cause one to be what they are. The test gives a public demonstration of rebellion. God does not need to test us, as if God does not know what we will do. God also puts us to the test to reveal ourselves to ourselves. Proverbs 3:12 For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights. To accept the 5 points of clavinisim is to accept that God has created people with absolutely no chance to be with Him in eternity. People who where made/designed to disbelieve. In the end everyone will believe in what they believe. All we can do is trust in God and be open to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I am convinced that the conclusion of calvanisim is an insult to God and in all conscience i cannot just stand by and allow it to be propagated unchallenged. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
That is a very nice strawman you have made. Did I mention you forgot to answer my questions directly? Beating around the bush doesn't help me. Let us note a few examples from the Bible, where God punishes the sons for the sins of the father by death. And other times where God punishes the sons for the sins of the parents by infirmity. What you are saying is that God strikes me down and then reaches down to help me up so that I can praise Him for being merciful. You have obviously misread the context Jenyar. PLEASE read it: "whom He wills He hardens". Those he hardened could not believe obviously. That is inescapable but you do not seem to be grasping it. That is not my current theory but. You did not answer my question. Try not to read implications that are not in my questions. I never called anyone or anything my god. Again, if you could stop with the condescending statements and ad hominems. Also many, if not all of your stated assumptions about me are inaccurate. Try not to make baseless accusations, especially when they are irrelevant to the topic. Very good. Brushing aside your irrelevant comments on what you believe I think and don't think.. Can you please provide me with the contextual evidence supporting your claim that Hosea 6:2? Remember in your response that the verses are referring to Israel and Judah. Contextual evidence, please. You are the first Christian who simply cannot refrain from using personal attacks against me. Can you just GET OVER IT so that we can talk? I am tired of hearing you tell me what god I have created and what I believe in and what I don't believe in. Paul says that "a man is not justified by observing the law" and Jesus says "whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." If you do not see the discrepancy. Now you are being just plain stupid. Where in that response did I claim to not know the difference between right and wrong? Keep your baseless accusations to yourself. Even though you have done your interpolation, your own words damn you. On what scale do you propose to measure the equivalence of murder and charity? Your arbitrary one? If not then why do you insinuate they are not the same? More arbitrariness? I was wondering when the great cop out would show up. I am sorry but this was never established. How did you arrive at the conclusion that righteousness is not something we can attain? It is also a non sequitur to claim since righteousness is not something we can attain, it must be a gift. Your logic does not follow. Are you sure you actually read the verse. It says quite clearly: we have been justified through faith. And again "...through whom we have gained access by faith" Therefore faith earns grace. Then He is obviously not omnipotent. Your logic fails and you contradict yourself hopelessly. That is a cop out and a contradiction. If I ask 'Which God' and you say you don't know, you contradict yourself by saying immediately thereafter that "I trust God's righteousness". Which God's righteousness do you trust? You are avoiding the question. What about the people in the entire continent of South America immediately after Jesus died? Did they all go to hell because they did not believe in someone they did not even know? The Bible says yes and you? Regardless of whether or not I or anyone else believes it, Christ died for our sins. My believing it does not change the fact. My unbelief does not change the fact either. Therefore we are saved whether or not we believe. And if you say only Christ can justify me and not his existence or death, then what would be the point in his death? Wow! Can you say 'strawman' 10 times really fast? No wonder you feel so confident. And how did you arrive at this conclusion? Are you saying God placed people in a position He knew would inevitably cause them to fail and them sent His son whom He arbitrarily knew would not fail? Why don't you try reading what I wrote for a change? I specifically said "from what we can tell". There is no indication however that God's hardening can produce faith. Please provide your reason for believing so instead of appealing to ignorance. In other words I should be circular and assume the God I am trying to believe in. Circulus in demonstrado! All religions spout the same rhetoric and so what if I choose to believe in some other religion which says the very same thing as you? Then I go to hell. So please stop trying to oversimplify. I will ask you the same thing. Based on evidence? Have you actually weighed the evidence for God? If it seems so incredulous to you then you should understand where someone is coming from when they say they have no reason to believe in God. Of course if you could give me some of these so called "claims" for believing in God, that would be beneficial. [quoting]Because evidently, there still is room for faults -- our faults. If we are still curled up in a small bundle of fear and anguish about whether we may accept forgiveness and love or not, aren't we holding on a bit too tightly to our faults, and letting them paralyze us into thinking God has ordained our situation or set it in stone?[/QUOTE] According to the Bible, that is precisely true.
If you don't want me to be arbitrary then do you also want me to accept that the earth is flat because the Bible says so? Or that Jesus is God because the Bible says so? I was zealous, not proud. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well then what should I do? I don't know what I want anymore. Nothing to look forward to. Everything seems trivial and hopeless. In the sense that they are not the reality we claim they are. Are you telling me to trust a circular system? That's suicide! But that "no matter what' mentality equals complacency. Is there anything you don't trust at face value? Do you have a counter-example then? No. This is resentment speaking.[/QUOTE] Justifiable faith is a contradiction in terms to me but. Do you have any examples of justifiable faith? Try not to be circular. See my point now? Who do you think God is? I obviously don't know and am searching in all the wrong places. I expect as much out as I put in. If I trusted you to mail me a huge sum of money to pay a debt, I would be at your whim. I would be entirely dependent on you to save me from my debt, I would be preocuppied with the hope of getting the money from you. Anyone who exercises that much power over another is too dangerous. But I am tired of waiting. I am not used to this sort of insecurity actually. I was used to bliss and now look at me. I am waiting for that dove from heaven to glide down and give me some inspired revelation of peace and joy and enlightenment. I can't go looking for God because I don't know where He is. So I have to wait until He comes to me. It doesn't look like He is either. I could learn from you. You could tell me how to find God. Aye, the Mormons.. //shudders I am changing the definitions of "I". When I say I fooled myself I mean my brain fooled me. It's quite difficult to explain until you see my theory. Who is to blame then? Somebody has to take it. I disappoint myself by not living up to my goals, whatever they may be. What I will and what I do are not the same. And don't say 'set lower goals' because I don't know how to set lower goals. It's like what you said about love, even if I wanted to, I couldn't. Why not? But I want a wonder pill. I want instant gratification. Whew. What does the man want really? Does he regret ever falling into the pit in the first place (does he desire the status quo ante)? Or does he never want to fall into the same pit again? I am afraid to know. But if I do these things, I overcome my problems. Then what am I really looking for? I put a lot in, I expect a lot out. Is that a a bad thing? It would change nonetheless. It is always changing. Therefore we have identities, not an identity. Our childhood environment moulds our identity for the most part. I will do to the perpetrator what has been done to me: destroy. Tit for tat. Yes I was brought up a Christian. But after some years I think I was thinking for myself about Christianity. And that would be one time too many. Should've never fallen into the pit. Then I wouldn't have needed to get out. He treats my experience as if it's the same as his. Let us do unto Jenyar as he does unto us. This is exactly why they cannot be trusted. They are all circular and therefore when you are broken free, you have nothing left. I hate it. I HATE IT. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know! That's why you have to tell me. I really don't know. I am used to having someone or something else giving me instructions. What do I do now for myself? I can only look to you. But I can't just stand there; I must do something! But what? Do you think it is realistic for me to seek satisfaction for myself? It should be. If not, it is false. Since it is a circular system, it is not defendable. So it is inconsistent with itself. Incompleteness. I was zealous back then, sheesh. I was full of the sperit' and I was a-comin to the forum to evangelize to the heathen. Did you really expect me to be Mother Theresa? Besides, I have never been one to show emotion. I hate showing emotion. It makes me weak. Makes me vulnerable. I still hate crying. I LOATHE crying. Oh how I hate it! Emotions are superfluous. If I am not right and I am conscious of that fact, then I become a hideous hypocrite for being complacent about it. I can't actually. I could only tell ex post. Well who was it then! The Buddha. I have been through the worst circle of thought and lived to tell the tale. I almost feel the need to pat myself on the back. All to be explained in due time dearest. Do not be so impatient with perfection. Isn't that an inconsistent demand too? And so we become inconsistent. Hypocrites. We pretend our arbitrariness isn't there. Tell me this: why should I trust again after what I am going through? (And don't say I will have to answer it for myself because I don't know how) So we are to be arbitrary? This somehow does not satisfy me. It does not satisfy me to know I am being arbitrary and content with being so. I want to be consistent but every where I turn I find circularity and arbitrariness. Inconsistency will drive me mad. Why is this so? My understanding of Christianity was correct within the circle even though I now see it as wrong. Anyone else's interpretation, if it differs, is wrong. Any differing viewpoint is an arbitrary deviation from orthodoxy;heresy. We can if we want to. But that doesn't satisfy me I say. What caused the Big Bang then? Why did the universe not just continue to be in the primordial state? To just throw our hands up in the air and say we can't know, to be complacent, that kills me. I cannot live with myself - for some reason. It helps. That is what you need to tell me because I seriously don't know anymore. Then why can I not do it? My will and my actions, they repel. And doubt we rightly should. There is no reason to be complacent. None. Like I said. There is no reason to be complacent. Even if I wanted to be complacent or remotely satisfied, I couldn't be. I can't. Don't know how to. I feel like I should be doing something. Don't know what though. Some people claim to know. I should be able to. Which is exactly my point. I cannot even want to be saved or be saved or find peace or whatever without God having power over every circumstance. If He did not, then He would not be omniscient. That is why He is to blame. Now you understand. Therefore either P1 or P2 must be false. Yes. I read the question and stumbled for a moment. I had wondered it before but was afraid to ask. Don't want to sound all sentimental and whatnot - hate it. Thank you.
And because of that, we have inconsitency. Arbitrariness. Hypocrisy. Incompleteness. Those things may be fine for you, you may be satisfied. Not me.
*squeezes SouthStar so strongly that he squeaks* There are many, many people who would be more than happy to tell you what you should do. But this doesn't mean they know what is good for you. Only you know that. No, not at all, I'm not telling you to trust a circular system. I would like you to see though that language isn't a circular system. No, not necessarily. Sometimes, things break down, and one must start from scratch. And in that situation, one must start with things that work no matter what. One cannot plan how to decorate the living room and buy that furniture, if one hasn't even poured the foundations of the house. There is more to people, and things, than face value. In the many threads I have started, it is for topics that came up here, faith being one of them -- in "Lack of faith". A habit is something that took effort to learn, but once you've learned it, you do it without thinking much. Surely, to some people, faith is something like that, a habit. If anything, habit breeds confidence. But, and here's the crux of the matter, when it comes to faith, it is essential to not let yourself become complacent in it -- becoming complacent in your faith is the same as betraying it, if that faith is such that it is about love and work (for example). Letting love and work become a habit is betraying love and work. I see your point, but the problem isn't with faith as such -- but with justification in general. Many things come naturally to us, are such that we do not question their origin or importance for us. But when challenged to explain why we have certain values and preferences -- we cannot logically, rationally, satisfactorily justify why we have those certain values and preferences. We *can* come up with justifications, but just because we can, does not mean that they indeed are proper justifications. And then we can spin in circles, fight, ad infinitum. I cannot justify my love for my cat. I *can* come up with reasons *why* I love my cat -- that he is beautiful, endearing, social etc. But the truth is, that all those reasons are so limiting, so abstract and have so utterly nothing to do with how I feel for my cat -- that these reasons are useless. Similarly with why have faith in God, or what is a justifiable faith. I find the questions possible, frequent, but utterly nonsensical. One can answer "I have faith in God because God will grant me eternal life" or "because God will see that justice will be served". But in my opinion, those are such gross abstractions and limitations that they downright equal a betrayal of faith and God. It's like saying "I love you because you are good to me" or "because you are beautiful". It's so instrumental! And what -- if the other person isn't good to you at some point, will you stop loving them because of that? Or if something happens to them and they aren't beautiful anymore (physically), you will stop loving them because of that? This is conditional love, and conditional love doesn't last, neither is it meaningful and fulfilling. Also, conditional faith also doesn't last, and it isn't meaningful and fulfilling. Love is. Faith is. One loves. One has faith. "Why?" is the wrong question here. Why is "Why?" a wrong question? Because answering it limits love and faith to something describable, something reasonable, and thus also something conditional. I don't know who God is. But I surely am on a good way to show what God is *not*! We can approach the definition ex negativo. Yes, and putting in a lot makes one vulnerable. What people really shun is the vulnerability, not trust as such. And it is this vulnerability that needs to be looked in. (A thread of its own!) Wait. Wait. -- To use your example: But would *you* trust *me* with *that*? The prerequisite of trust is knowing the other person. The more you know someone, the more you know whether you can trust them and what in you can trust them. If I would be a rich relative whom you are on close tems with and who has helped out before, then it would make sense to trust me for that money. Otherwise, no, and you also wouldn't be at that person's whim. I understand this. Such is life. My heart is sore pained within me: and the terrors of death are fallen upon me. Fearfulness and trembling are come upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me. And I said, Oh that I had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away, and be at rest. Why do you think I could tell you how to find God? I know what you mean, but I think you are shifting the onus. No. First of all, no crime happened. Secondly, what we are after is an *explanation*, we are not seeking someone or something to accuse, put to jail or destroy and then feel relieved. There is no blame here, only an explanation. I think you need to rethink the way you understand success. Right now, I see that you are being crushed under the weight of seeing that you aren't perfectly achieving your goals. The pressure of accomplishing what you want is so high that it paralyzes you and prevents you from doing what you actually could do, if that pressure wouldn't be there. I'm not saying lower your goals. But I do think that one is not one's success. If it would be forged, it wouldn't be trust, it would be another conditional thing. (See above.) In that case, you have to take wonder ways! Magic, superstition, drugs, whores, you name it! I think the man wants both -- that he had never fallen into the pit, and that he would never fall into it again. Really? Maybe this needs elaboration. See the hiccup thread. (I will get to it as soon as I can, I am just so busy lately.) Yourself? No, not at all. I think this is how it should be. But considering that you sometimes feel like an idiot if you get betrayed, I think something isn't right in the way you trust. But does the childhood environment inavoidably determine the rest of one's life, without the possibility to ever change the (seemingly) set course? What? You will found a new sect and have all the people who have religiously influenced you in your childhood to become members of that sect and then you will indoctrinate them and all that? Ah, "should have"! If you keep on repeating that things should not be the way they are, then you are unable to see how they truly are. I don't have this feeling. Oh. I know you hate it. I think it is good so. You are tempting my vanity! Too many people are too ready to tell you what to do. All I can and am willing to do is offer a perspective -- but this does in no way mean that I am *telling you* to do as I "told" you. You are doing something, the best you can at the moment. Yes, very much so. No, not at all. An ideological belief system is a matter of values and preferences. These cannot be intellectually defended. Eventually, nothing is defendable or justifiable! You *can* doubt everything. No, not at all. I had no expectations. Oh. Non sequitur. Such is being human. There was a long line of factors, as far as I can tell, and none of them can be ascribed full responsibility for what happened. What happened was a combined effort of those many factors, this is why it seems so ungraspable and inexplicable, so beyond reach and control. Hehe. And no, you haven't been "through the worst circle of thought and lived to tell the tale". In order to be able to tell which circle is the worst, you'd have to experience many, many. Ever devotedly, passionately, blood-sheddingly tried Islam? Hinduism? Scientology, perhaps? No. So you can't tell which is worse. Yes, this was the objection I had in mind as I wrote that post. But it is also true that there is no reason to feel like an idiot if you trust someone -- someone whom you know and whom you have found to be trustworthy. No. From my perspective, what *you* call "arbitrariness", is understood as 'not taking for granted'. Trust whom, trust what? You are not a robot at the mercy of other people! Uh. First get to know people, ideas, then there will come a time when you will be able to decide whether to trust them or not. Look, if you cling on to this arbitrariness, then sure, everything will look like relativistic shit. But that's the inevitable problem if one wants to have everything intellectually justifiable -- one ends up feeling a hypocrite and a scumbag of arbitrariness. As an aside -- why such negative evaluations (hypocrite, arbitrariness), if everything is arbitrary anyway?! But which one is orthodoxy?! Each understanding of Christianity is correct within its circle! Oh, you can live with yourself, you just don't like it the way it is at the moment. And you are working to fix it. Wait, I'm not sure I understand: What repels? Your will and your actions repel other people, and hence trust is impossible? Or do your will and your actions rebel? But don't let doubt become your master. I think you are doing something. For one thing, you are talking here to me, to people on this forum. Maybe it isn't exactly what you are looking for, but this shouldn't discourage you from keeping on looking. Ah, should, should, should. Bah! To should is to not. But blaming God doesn't help you, does it?! Namely, you don't know who God is or where to find him, so blaming him really isn't a solution to your problems. You are blaming someone whom you don't know. No. It only means that you cannot use all three premises in one and the same argument! You're welcome. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If I shouldn't be arbitrary then I shouldn't have double standards. That means I can't read the Bible the way I *want* to.. I just take it all literally I think I know. I think I think I know. They think they know. They think they think they know. To trust others when they themselves are inconsistent. To trust ourselves when we ourselves are inconsistent. What a dangerous risk to take. Language is a circular system. Words are defined by words. You use language to show that language is a circular system. Why is language not a circular system? Because it is not a circular system. Nope, don't see the circularity there. It is by language we know there is even a circularity to begin with, which means that language is responsible for the circularity. Just as the blind do not dream visually, the deaf and dumb do not think circularly since they don't think verbally. Why must one start with things that work no matter what? The point is although we don't know why this is true, we are just complacent about it all and accept it. That is what my ranting about circularity has been about: people do not care that their thinking is circular and are just complacent about it all. But face value is all we get to see. "Habit breeds confidence", and that is what faith is. Confidence. We become complacent in our faiths because we have assumed them true for so long. But to have a faith in something is to assume it t be true anyway so I suppose we are complacent in our faiths from the very beginning - otherwise we wouldn't have faith in that something to begin with. But why should we want to be complacent? Well said! Tell this to Jenyar.. I wonder why apologists do what they do then? Is that not self defeating? What I am most interested in is that "it comes naturally to us". Yet another blow to free will I say! Like I said in the other thread, I think the predispositon to axiomatizing our faith is entirely biological - we can't help it. The things we actually do axiomatize is left for social factors to determine. The beloved theory talks a little bit about why we can't reason out these things. I wonder why society has laws then? Why tell someone they can't follow their proclivity to stealing? Because you think it is immoral does not follow. There is something stupidly wrong about the legal system. I hate laws very deeply. Knowing what God is not does not tell us what God is. I think this approach does not address the problem. Is it bad to not want to be vulnerable? More importantly, do you think that is cowardice - to be afraid of being vulnerable? I think it is an irrational fear - what you talked about earlier. It just comes to some to not want to be vulnerable and there can be no proper justification for it. This is where face value comes in. On close terms or not, you still know them at face value. Therefore you must make 'estimations', assumptions, prima facie on what you think you know about this person. Their being a relative is one of the reasons we might trust such a person but. It does not follow that since they are a relative they are more trustworthy. So why are we inclined to trust relatives? It comes naturally to most. Social factors may deter others from doing so - from trusting anyone at all. Neither party can satisfactorily justify whythey trust or don't trust. You may say you know about this person but. You think you know about this person is the reality. You think you think you know about this person. There is no direct knowledge and therefore we make assumptions. A very dangerous risk indeed. Don't we all wish to take the easy way out. You seem to be farther up the ladder than I am when it comes to these things. Of course this assumption is made at face value.. I say the onus has never been on me; I have only assumed it to be so. Will an explanation be as satisfactory? This smells of complacency.. One is not one's sucess, but one is one's failure all the same. In that case, you and I agree that trust is unreasonable. Why trust if you have no reason to trust? A dangerous risk I say. It almost sounds like you disdain these things. This man had better make up his mind on what he really wants. He doesn't live forever you know. So how does he make up his mind? Truth. I am looking for truth. Truth which is not there. I know there is no truth and yet I am looking for it. Look how I scour the desert for glistening lakes. Conditional trust is reasonable (somewhat). Unconditional trust? Utterly absurd. Not a scrap of justification. If I thought I had a reason for trusting and find that the trust has been betrayed, then who is the fool for trusting in the first place? You see? The childhood environment determines whether one wants to change the course in the first place. I will tell them I am going to blast them away with psychic powers if they don't obey me. And after a great many years of toil and devotion, they will find out that I am a quadraplegic without psychic powers. Hmm.. don't think so. Face value. Not how something "truly" is. That can never be determined. Only face value assumptions. I can trust you can't I? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tell that to Jenyar.. who thinks one can change their preferences at a whim (under the threat of eternal torment). Why do Christians not doubt their beliefs then? Why? Could've saved me the trouble of asking.. True, we don't control anything. Free will is a farce as I will claim for the millionth time. I wonder why all those who challenged this did not show why it is not.. I'm not planning to try any of them either! What do you mean by that? Trust them at face value. You seem to be contradicting yourself: if there is no reason for you loving your cat, then why is intimacy a reason for trusting someone? Intimacy shouldn't even be considered when deciding whether or not to trust someone and yet it is. That's part of what makes me irate. Why do people look down on arbitrariness? Why is circularity disdained? People arbitrarily look down on arbitrariness; people circularly disdain circularity. It angers me to see such foolishness. Tell that to Jenyar. Each disbelief of Christianity is correct within it's own circle. Let him challenge this. Let him show why God still finds fault with us. Fix arbitrariness, fix circularity, show me truth. And I will be in tip-top shape. I want to trust but I do not. I want to believe but I do not. My will and my actions are polarized. Hence this thread. Misses the point of the thread. See above. I don't WANT doubt to be my master, but it is in any case. I just can't help it. Where should I look? I know what I am looking for I cannot find, why do I still search? Why do I still hope? No reason to do so. It's a start in any case. An irrational one but. hat argument contains these premises: Why not? //gruff voice Now that I've let it out let's pretend I never said that!
That one will take a while to get over. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sorry to butt into all the mushy stuff... so sweet. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'd say there's no prob in using them in the same argument - you just have to remember that you aren't God - you have to switch perspective. Omniscient = All knowing. Knowing what has happened what happens and what will happen. Things can happen, have happened, do happen, and will happen. Omnipotent = All Powerful (ability): not all doing. We have free will. We (also) make things happen.
Not so. If something is going to happen, God already knew about it. This is the power of omniscience. If God already knew about it, then He planned it in advance. If He did not plan it in advance, then the event is outside His control and He is therefore not omnipotent. This too is inescapable. Therefore all things God planned deliberately. If He did not plan something to happen but it happens anyway, then it means that such event is itself autonomous and does not depend on God to function. I am sure you do not want to come to that conclusion. Romans 8 28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. And this we see in the Scriptures. He foreknew the elect, He predestined the elect. If he did not know who the elect were going to be, if He did not predestine who the elect were going to be, then He is not possibly omnipotent - salvation could occur without His will. If we are to assume God's will prevails in all circumstances, then it is simply inescapable that He willed the circumstance. For this reason, he has deliberately (and unreasonably?) damned many human beings to eternal torment knowing and intending for them to never achieve salvation.
Southstar, I was just thinking that the first thing you would need to do to find a less negative opinion on spirituality, would be to let go of the idea that everything in the bible has a one-dimensional truth that, once found, will make sense to everyone. The idea of pre-destination, although it seems quite simple to you, has been argued about by christians for many hundreds of years. The way you describe it is only accepted by a few sects of christianity. Although I personally believe that the only way to reach God is through God's calling, I haven't been able to work out all the details in a way which is satisfactory to me. This is not sufficient reason for me to give up on the whole thing, though. I am also working on other things in my life that have not come to satisfactory conclusions yet, but I am not ready to give up on them either. I don't blame you for being confused by christianity and the bible, I am confused as to how all the ideas I have been presented with can be reconciled, also. Omnipotence as you describe it in its relation to pre-destination seems to be correct, but omnipotence, in the sense of it meaning the implementation of total control over every action in the universe, is not a good definition, I think. The ability to control and the taking of that control are two different things. The omnipotence of God sure seems to put a lot of responsibility on God, but I am working under the impression that God somehow gives me responsibility for this piece of the physical universe I call, "my life".
Couldn't have said it better. I think you just have to realise what is important and what isn't. Predestination and free will can be reconciled and have been reconciled - at least in my mind. I agree. Accolades. Well said Grey.
You just have to make sure you know which determines which. God knows what [will] happen [s/ed]; therefore what happens necessarily determines his knowledge. His knowledge doesn't determine what will happen. If God already knew about it doesn't mean he planned it in advance, as knowledge is not action. If He did[does/will] not plan it in advance it simply means He does[did/will] not exercise His omnipotence to it's fullest - thus free will - Cole Grey adds the rest. Not a matter of want; it's absolutely unnecessary. Your "therefore" does not necessarily follow from above. Autonomous - for example; us and our decisions. Simply because I allow something to function without my intervention doesn't mean I have no control over it. Jet aircraft can practically fly themselves if properly outfitted; this does not mean the pilot cannot seize the controls at any moment (manual override). As you submit more to God's Will through your free will I think something equating to "Divine Override" occurs. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The more Divine Control through submission the more predestination becomes the relevant issue. I think they work in concert - no need for Christians to argue or debate among themselves.
I think one should also not be too confident that predestination as understood in the Bible necessarily corresponds with your personal definition of predestination. If one's definition isn't shaped by the guidelines in the Bible, one cannot call it "Biblical" anymore. For instance, we read in Luke 7: 29 All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptised by John. 30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptised by John.) It's not the ones who are right that are right before God. We can take some comfort in that, but not too much, as Paul argues in Romans 3 -- it's not our unfaithfulness (our "being wrong") that makes God "more right". Conversely, our faithfulness only confirms that He is right; it does not take away our sin. No, "all are alike under sin" (Rom.3:9) and that's why God finds fault in anyone. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no-one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.It's not our understanding of Christianity that is important, but our obedience to God. That obedience is shown by acknowledging our sins and accepting his grace, made universally available through Christ. God's promises were to faithful Israel; Christ is faithful Israel. Not any "circle of Christianity".
Who or what exactly is preventing you to read the Bible the way you want to read it? This is as good as it gets. If you view language as "words are defined by words", then you can NEVER use this language to say something about extralingual reality. But if we look at ourselves, we see that we use language as a medium, a tool -- and we use it to REFER to things. How then can we still claim that language is circular?! And language is not responsible for circularity. Circularity can only emerge when we try to justify something. I doubt it is so. Logic exists without language, and it is only a certain kind of logic that leads to circularity. (If we think in terms of cause and effect.) ! What else?! Not to argue "from ignorance", but I think "start with things that work no matter what" is simply a matter of common sense. Of course, you can analyze it to death -- and this is exactly where such analysis leads to: death. I think you are being negativistic. We do learn, get to know people, construct ourselves images of them. This eventually leads to us seeing past this face value. I don't think so. Well, to keep with your line of argument: It is economical to be complacent (" "). And before you ask: Living system behave economically, it is inherent to them. The issue is much much broader I think. While seen from a relativistic perspective, nothing is justifiable, indeed, and "why?" is the wrong question. However, humans seem to have a natural proclivity (thank you, Merriam-Webster) to seek purpose, to seek reasons, causality. We cannot but attempt to answer that "why?". Why society has laws? It "comes naturally to it". We can say that society behaves like a big organism, another system that seeks internal consistence. The same as an individual is trying to be consistent, the whole of society is trying to do that too. I think it does -- it has preliminary value. There is so much we suposedly know about God -- but most of it is severly shaped by religious practice and tradition, politics, education, many other factors. So attempting to answer what God is not is a way to clear off those inconsistent conceptions that have piled up in our minds over the years. I think that nobody *wants* to be vulnerable. "Being afraid of being vulnerable" is a misnomer. One doesn't want to be hurt. No, I don't think so. I think the issue here is that people don't want to be hurt. But not wanting to be hurt is not the same as not wanting to be vulnerable. But. Once one admits that one doesn't want to be hurt, this sets the line of thinking in the direction of *what* is it that can hurt one. But what can really hurt you? I mean really hurt you? Physical hurt is one thing -- it is reasonable to be afraid of that. But being so afraid of betrayal that one refuses to commit -- this is an act of a person who does not know himself. Either this, or face the consequences of not paying the debt. I do not think there is a "ladder". Exactly. Now you can put down your cross of martyrdom! Yes. You'll know when you have the right explanation: It will upset you, make you a bit unease, angry, but literally minutes after, you will feel calm and at peace with the matter that caused you so much anguish. No. Maybe if you would look at trust from some other perspective -- instead of the inductive statistic you are using now --, trust would make a lot of sense to you. Think about how it is when you are happy when you are with someone. I typed them in deep disdain. I say the onus has never been on me; I have only assumed it to be so. What truth? Objective reality a la Ayn Rand? ... and whom are you talking to right now? (Sorry, I am just so full of myself sometimes ...) You are not being fair to yourself. You cannot judge past actions with the knowledge that these actions later on produced. I mean, you can do that, but it is not fair. We cannot judge the past with the present and say "oh what a fool I was". Had I not done what I did, I could have never come to the knowledge I have now. Learn from the past, but don't condemn it. And in your case, it determined that you are to change your course. Okay. Uh. You are digging your own grave. I think you can. I do understand very well how it comes across as if he "thinks one can change their preferences at a whim". But it's not true, I can tell you that he doesn't think so. I think they have their reasons. And I think we would have them to, if we would in fact believe. Are you to think yourself weak if you cannot lift 350 kg? Are you to think yourself slow if you cannot run at 100 km/h? Are you to think yourself stupid if your IQ isn't above 140? ... None of these things (and the list is vast) can determine your personal worth. But just because I cannot lift 350 kg, run at 100 km/h and so on, and don't feel weak, slow, stupid etc. does NOT mean that I am being "complacent" about it. What standards is one to live up -- other than one's own?! See my reply to your theory. It means that the same reality is addressed from two very different perspectives: While you condemn yourself for being a hypocrite and arbitrary, I take the position of being cautious and not take things for granted. You get negative results and dissatisfaction, I have chances to be rewarded. Indeed, there is no "reason" for loving my cat. I could find "reasons", but any "reason" I would name would be insufficient to me. This is how there is no "reason" for loving my cat. Intimacy isn't a *reason for* trusting someone. Intimacy creates the space within which trust is possible. Where on earth did you get this?! :bugeye: Stuff takes time. You'd be too overwhelmed if it'd all happen from one moment to another; chances are, you would lose all continuity of your identity. Why do you think that you want to trust? Why do you think that you want to believe? I think this doubt now is just a creative step to something new. Well, if you have defined that what you are looking for cannot be found ... then ... then you must be mad. Or something else is the reason. Doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, is madness. The argument structure is invalid if the argument contains premises that contradict eachother. The premise P3: Things can happen. implies 'Things can happen without God knowing about them', and this is in contradiction with P2: All things happen according to God's knowledge. Uh. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! * * * Well, don't just stand there! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is a problem -- as I have addressed it in my reply to SouthStar. As for remembering one isn't God: Yes, I keep saying this! * * * K. FALSE. We did say that "He planned it in advance." Everything. Within the same argument you use premises that contradict eachother! P1: God planned everything. P2: God did not plan everything. It's bad logic! To quote Marc: you just have to remember that you aren't God. You do not know who the elect are, you do not know who will indeed be saved and who won't. One thing is if one is afraid that one is not among the elect. But to think that one is not among the elect is sheer self-victimizing vanity. * * * I just quoted this to emphasize and repeat a point I have brought up earlier. To clarify the issue with these circles: They have to do with the meta-aspect of a belief, from the general methodological perspective. We could have also used the terms "Christian sects", "Christian churches" and such. But in the light of discussions held elsewhere, the term "circle" refers to an individual system as such (this system being closed and self-referential, and as such, a circle).
water: Who or what exactly is preventing you to read the Bible the way you want to read it? This is as good as it gets. If you view language as "words are defined by words", then you can NEVER use this language to say something about extralingual reality. But if we look at ourselves, we see that we use language as a medium, a tool -- and we use it to REFER to things. How then can we still claim that language is circular?! And language is not responsible for circularity. Circularity can only emerge when we try to justify something. I doubt it is so. Logic exists without language, and it is only a certain kind of logic that leads to circularity. (If we think in terms of cause and effect.) ! What else?! Not to argue "from ignorance", but I think "start with things that work no matter what" is simply a matter of common sense. Of course, you can analyze it to death -- and this is exactly where such analysis leads to: death. I think you are being negativistic. We do learn, get to know people, construct ourselves images of them. This eventually leads to us seeing past this face value. I don't think so. Well, to keep with your line of argument: It is economical to be complacent (" "). And before you ask: Living system behave economically, it is inherent to them. The issue is much much broader I think. While seen from a relativistic perspective, nothing is justifiable, indeed, and "why?" is the wrong question. However, humans seem to have a natural proclivity (thank you, Merriam-Webster) to seek purpose, to seek reasons, causality. We cannot but attempt to answer that "why?". Why society has laws? It "comes naturally to it". We can say that society behaves like a big organism, another system that seeks internal consistence. The same as an individual is trying to be consistent, the whole of society is trying to do that too. I think it does -- it has preliminary value. There is so much we suposedly know about God -- but most of it is severly shaped by religious practice and tradition, politics, education, many other factors. So attempting to answer what God is not is a way to clear off those inconsistent conceptions that have piled up in our minds over the years. I think that nobody *wants* to be vulnerable. "Being afraid of being vulnerable" is a misnomer. One doesn't want to be hurt. No, I don't think so. I think the issue here is that people don't want to be hurt. But not wanting to be hurt is not the same as not wanting to be vulnerable. But. Once one admits that one doesn't want to be hurt, this sets the line of thinking in the direction of *what* is it that can hurt one. But what can really hurt you? I mean really hurt you? Physical hurt is one thing -- it is reasonable to be afraid of that. But being so afraid of betrayal that one refuses to commit -- this is an act of a person who does not know himself. Either this, or face the consequences of not paying the debt. I do not think there is a "ladder". Exactly. Now you can put down your cross of martyrdom! Yes. You'll know when you have the right explanation: It will upset you, make you a bit unease, angry, but literally minutes after, you will feel calm and at peace with the matter that caused you so much anguish. No. Maybe if you would look at trust from some other perspective -- instead of the inductive statistic you are using now --, trust would make a lot of sense to you. Think about how it is when you are happy when you are with someone. I typed them in deep disdain. I say the onus has never been on me; I have only assumed it to be so. \What truth? Objective reality a la Ayn Rand? ... and whom are you talking to right now? (Sorry, I am just so full of myself sometimes ...) You are not being fair to yourself. You cannot judge past actions with the knowledge that these actions later on produced. I mean, you can do that, but it is not fair. We cannot judge the past with the present and say "oh what a fool I was". Had I not done what I did, I could have never come to the knowledge I have now. Learn from the past, but don't condemn it. And in your case, it determined that you are to change your course. Okay. Uh. You are digging your own grave. I think you can. I do understand very well how it comes across as if he "thinks one can change their preferences at a whim". But it's not true, I can tell you that he doesn't think so. I think they have their reasons. And I think we would have them to, if we would in fact believe. Are you to think yourself weak if you cannot lift 350 kg? Are you to think yourself slow if you cannot run at 100 km/h? Are you to think yourself stupid if your IQ isn't above 140? ... None of these things (and the list is vast) can determine your personal worth. But just because I cannot lift 350 kg, run at 100 km/h and so on, and don't feel weak, slow, stupid etc. does NOT mean that I am being "complacent" about it. What standards is one to live up -- other than one's own?! See my reply to your theory. It means that the same reality is addressed from two very different perspectives: While you condemn yourself for being a hypocrite and arbitrary, I take the position of being cautious and not take things for granted. You get negative results and dissatisfaction, I have chances to be rewarded. Indeed, there is no "reason" for loving my cat. I could find "reasons", but any "reason" I would name would be insufficient to me. This is how there is no "reason" for loving my cat. Intimacy isn't a *reason for* trusting someone. Intimacy creates the space within which trust is possible. Where on earth did you get this?! :bugeye: ************* M*W: Intimacy is what occurs between husband and wife -- between Jesus and mary Magdaoen. Stuff takes time. You'd be too overwhelmed if it'd all happen from one moment to another; chances are, you would lose all continuity of your identity. Why do you think that you want to trust? Why do you think that you want to believe? I think this doubt now is just a creative step to something new. Well, if you have defined that what you are looking for cannot be found ... then ... then you must be mad. Or something else is the reason. Doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result, is madness. The argument structure is invalid if the argument contains premises that contradict eachother. The premise P3: Things can happen. implies 'Things can happen without God knowing about them', and this is in contradiction with P2: All things happen according to God's knowledge. Uh. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! * * * Well, don't just stand there! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is a problem -- as I have addressed it in my reply to SouthStar. As for remembering one isn't God: Yes, I keep saying this! * * * K. FALSE. We did say that "He planned it in advance." Everything. Within the same argument you use premises that contradict eachother! P1: God planned everything. P2: God did not plan everything. It's bad logic! To quote Marc: you just have to remember that you aren't God. You do not know who the elect are, you do not know who will indeed be saved and who won't. One thing is if one is afraid that one is not among the elect. But to think that one is not among the elect is sheer self-victimizing vanity. * * * I just quoted this to emphasize and repeat a point I have brought up earlier. To clarify the issue with these circles: They have to do with the meta-aspect of a belief, from the general methodological perspective. We could have also used the terms "Christian sects", "Christian churches" and such. But in the light of discussions held elsewhere, the term "circle" refers to an individual system as such (this system being closed and self-referential, and as such, a circle).[/QUOTE]
So we pick and choose what to believe about God as we will. Believe what is most comforting. Do you believe because you believe cole grey?
The brain. How did you know language was a medium? By language maybe? Hmm Circularity is long before that. To try to justify something, you must first assume it. Assume it because you want to. Or so you assume because you simply don't know. So is it then you who wants to assume? You don't know. But. You still assume anyway. Doesn't all that smell like smelling rotten tuna to you? Leaves a bad taste. That would be the way most people think - in terms of cause and effect. So why think in terms of cause and effect? Don't know. But the absence of knowledge doesn't bother, why not still think that way because it is common sense.. Seeing circles yet? I have told you millions of times, don't exaggerate your point. The alternative is confoundingly simple. Just say, Lord, I don't know. And since you know that you don't know, don't assume. That is the real trap. Not analyticity. I think you are being unnecessarily positivistic. I don't want to say it out here just in case. And we see what we want to see. Call it negativism all you want but it's true. That sounds very much like a cop out to me Also sounds very much like "free will is inferred anyways" and a host of other 'that's just the way it is' type comments. I didn't say it was good or bad, only observing. Well if we don't know why, then what is the point in assuming? Isn't that self defeating? Did I mention I don't like the 'that's just the way it is' response? Blame the neurons. You know what image came to mind? A haystack with a needle in it. Burn the straw I say. Let me guess: that's just human tendency. That's just the way it is. An act of a person who does not know himself? In reality, that is the wisdom of a person who does not pretend or assume he knows his fellow human. An extremely wise step in the right direction. Once one admits that one doesn't want to be hurt, one knows that one is a coward. It is not self deprecating, it is not negativism. You might not want to face it or you might want to make it pretty or whatever but that's the truth. The truth doesn't hurt when you don't want to know it. Nothing hurts you until you say it hurts you. And so it does not hurt me. The latter is for he who is not a coward. The former, for the sage. You wouldn't believe how much has changed since our last conversation. I think I have found the explanation. It is rather amusing and I often giggle when I think of how absurd it sounds. I don't think anyone is going to believe me if I told them the truth. The crazy crazy truth. Beyond your wildest dreams I promise. Yes. I win. And so you trust because of a feeling?! I certainly do not will myself to be happy when I am with something - but I am anyway. The experiencer, that's what I am. Haha. If I told you, you would think I was absolutely crazy for having entertained it. I trust because it makes me feel good. Now there's something I can live with. That makes sense.. for some odd reason. I like it. Selfish but good. We are getting somewhere. Damn you and your pointing out my self contradictions. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I still don't know who she is and I see her name here and there. Is she also a she-deathbeast with claws? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It took a while to click.. Optimism never changed reality. But if we don't make baseless assumptions in the first place, we would not even be looking at the past ruefully. Don't make an assumption and you won't have to live with it. How simple is that? A marvelous truth! Okay. Show me the way. Not at all. I am on the highest mountain! My truth is my truth alone. Mine! The secret is: You have to be indifferent. You can't put yourself at the center of your life. This might seem absurd but it is shockingly true. Haha. I can't believe I didn't think of this before. Belief because we believe in faith. I am trying SO HARD to knock it into you that there is something fishy about that. Faith cannot be trusted. It should not. It just should be avoided like a crushed bird's carcass in the roadside. Take the narrow road. Well we are getting somewhere. Back to laws. Is it then not an absurdity to impose laws. It is absurd! I have never seen such a gross oversimplification of life as is clearly evident in the ignominious doctrine of free will. It is not even self evident for Christ's sake! It really really is not that simple. If society is going to presuppose an absurd concept, it might as well not be one which is riddled with problems. From free will, an absurd system of standards is opposed for the alledged "good" of the individual when this good is clearly not self evident and is most surely presupposed. And so the people see the good of laws because they see what they want to see. Assume it is so and it will be so for you. How any so-called "intelligent" human being cannot see the error of presuming and the consequential errors in their assumptions is beyond me. We MUST be suspicious of our knowledge and the very reason for which we know. Taking it for granted is unacceptable. Saying that's just the way it is is unsatisfactory. Calling it impractical is unjustified. You simply can NOT be complacent about this. It is dangerous. Very dangerous. Whether or not my biological solution is an adequate alternative or not does not change the fact that free will is presupposed. We want to see free will and so we see free will. I cannot stress this enough. HOW we know and WHY we know are to be regarded with utmost suspicion. I am beginning to be satisfied with a lot of things. I just need to try.. a little more.. Listen. I am NOT condemning myself. I am observing that because of vanity and because of pride, I presuppose and I don't care that there is no reason to presuppose and I don't care that the presupposition will lead to an infinite chain of assumptions. I am getting the most positive results I can *realistically* expect. I just don't have the time I used to have anymore but I am progressing, really I am. Intimacy creates the space within which trust is possible sounds a lot to me like 'intimacy is the reason for trusting someone' reworded vaguely. I don't see any reason why intimacy should be considered when deciding whether or not to trust someone and you don't either. Thanks for the warning but it's a little for that right now.. I think this goes back to free will and just how absurd it is. (Sorry but I must insult free will every change I can. I can't resist the impulse) "I" don't want to believe. "I" don't want to trust. There is no "I" as I have been telling you all along. The "I" is a grand delusion. I knew you would never believe me if I told you and even know I am chuckling to myself. The reality is beyond our wildest dreams. I want to believe because the brain wants to believe. Take it or leave it. The explanation I have is just fantastic. Haha. I think I am satisfied. I don't have enough time to enjoy the satisfaction but I am satisfied alright. Yes I am. Bingo! That oversimplifies it. A lot of what you are saying oversimplifies the reality. Haha. You'll be shocked at the reality. Shocked! I like talking to you. It makes me see things a lot differently. I must have been mad not to realize this earlier. I'm going back and encoding everything..
