|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 19, 2018 23:21:03 GMT
You aren't the only person who reads what I write to you. Adam and Eve had every choice in the Garden of Eden but one. I tell you the truth including about yourself as I see it. I have no intention of harming you. That you assume I am a "follower of Christ" without ever being told any such thing shows what a tangled mess your understanding of religion is. Adam and Eve had every choice in the Garden of Eden but one.
Really? What would that choice have been?
I tell you the truth including about yourself as I see it. I have no intention of harming you.
Well, I suppose that's fortunate, otherwise you'd have failed in that objective. As to 'telling me the truth about myself', that's not only a bit hubristic, I have to say I can't see where you've told me anything about myself, true or otherwise. If you're referring to that habit you have of denigrating the intelligence of others the better to support your notion that you're the most intelligent person in the room, that tells more of a 'truth' about you than it does about me, or anyone else you've attempted that tactic on.
That you assume I am a "follower of Christ" without ever being told any such thing shows what a tangled mess your understanding of religion is.
Ah then, if you're not and are simply playing devil's advocate, perhaps you should identify yourself as such. And if my understanding of religion is a 'tangled mess', it's surely no more a tangled mess than your attempts to explain any aspects of it have been. So if you're positing yourself as the way, the truth and the light, I suggest you go back to the want ads and seek another vocation. A funny thing about science and free will is that there are posters here who think science has established there is no free will. I rather suspect though that the prefrontal lobe of the brain has some connection, however remote, to free will since cutting it out was at one time considered a solution for people whose "free" behavior was dangerous to themselves and others. It made them compliant "vegetables" in a manner of speaking. If everyone got a prefrontal lobotomy then you could decide yourself what "perfect" is and tell them to do that. I wouldn't go along though. For one thing I doubt you have a clue what perfect is. I think you should get a prefrontal lobotomy first if you think they're such fine things. We'll see how it works out. Maybe then you'll see what's perfect. I don't believe they're allowed anymore, but they might make an exception in your case. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 19, 2018 23:49:31 GMT
Adam and Eve had every choice in the Garden of Eden but one.
Really? What would that choice have been?
I tell you the truth including about yourself as I see it. I have no intention of harming you.
Well, I suppose that's fortunate, otherwise you'd have failed in that objective. As to 'telling me the truth about myself', that's not only a bit hubristic, I have to say I can't see where you've told me anything about myself, true or otherwise. If you're referring to that habit you have of denigrating the intelligence of others the better to support your notion that you're the most intelligent person in the room, that tells more of a 'truth' about you than it does about me, or anyone else you've attempted that tactic on.
That you assume I am a "follower of Christ" without ever being told any such thing shows what a tangled mess your understanding of religion is.
Ah then, if you're not and are simply playing devil's advocate, perhaps you should identify yourself as such. And if my understanding of religion is a 'tangled mess', it's surely no more a tangled mess than your attempts to explain any aspects of it have been. So if you're positing yourself as the way, the truth and the light, I suggest you go back to the want ads and seek another vocation. A funny thing about science and free will is that there are posters here who think science has established there is no free will. I rather suspect though that the prefrontal lobe of the brain has some connection, however remote, to free will since cutting it out was at one time considered a solution for people whose "free" behavior was dangerous to themselves and others. It made them compliant "vegetables" in a manner of speaking. If everyone got a prefrontal lobotomy then you could decide yourself what "perfect" is and tell them to do that. I wouldn't go along though. For one thing I doubt you have a clue what perfect is. I think you should get a prefrontal lobotomy first if you think they're such fine things. We'll see how it works out. Maybe then you'll see what's perfect. I don't believe they're allowed anymore, but they might make an exception in your case. Answer her questions. Refute her points. Stop waffling on the same old nonsense and stop I am calling you on this  |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 0:04:17 GMT
I am calling you on this ... Do you mean like telling people they're racist and sexist even after they prove they're not? Or telling people they're "illogical" even after you've been shown to have the difficulty with logic? That sort of bullying? Perish the thought I would do anything like that. As for God being to blame for anything was it not you who said God was a black woman? Now you want me to agree with her that god is to blame for everything, black woman God and all? You're pushing silly beyond the border. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 20, 2018 0:20:35 GMT
I am calling you on this ... Do you mean like telling people they're racist and sexist even after they prove they're not? Or telling people they're "illogical" even after you've been shown to have the difficulty with logic? That sort of bullying? Perish the thought I would do anything like that. As for God being to blame for anything was it not you who said God was a black woman? Now you want me to agree with her that god is to blame for everything, black woman God and all? You're pushing silly beyond the border. Except that all your accusations are baseless. 1. I never said anyone was racist and sexist. That was a premise I put forward for consideration from a noted international artist. 2. You are illogical in your views. I called you on it. 3. The bullying where you use ad hominem to belittle other posters. 4. You do. 5. I never said God was a black woman as I don't believe in God. Where is your 'logic' here? 6. How can I (and I didn't) assert that God is a black woman when I don't believe in God? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 0:25:22 GMT
Do you mean like telling people they're racist and sexist even after they prove they're not? Or telling people they're "illogical" even after you've been shown to have the difficulty with logic? That sort of bullying? Perish the thought I would do anything like that. As for God being to blame for anything was it not you who said God was a black woman? Now you want me to agree with her that god is to blame for everything, black woman God and all? You're pushing silly beyond the border. Except that all your accusations are baseless. 1. I never said anyone was racist and sexist. That was a premise I put forward for consideration from a noted international artist. 2. You are illogical in your views. I called you on it. 3. The bullying where you use ad hominem to belittle other posters. 4. You do. 5. I never said God was a black woman as I don't believe in God. Where is your 'logic' here? 6. How can I (and I didn't) assert that God is a black woman when I don't believe in God? Aha, now I see some advantages in never having any thoughts of your own. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 20, 2018 0:32:02 GMT
Except that all your accusations are baseless. 1. I never said anyone was racist and sexist. That was a premise I put forward for consideration from a noted international artist. 2. You are illogical in your views. I called you on it. 3. The bullying where you use ad hominem to belittle other posters. 4. You do. 5. I never said God was a black woman as I don't believe in God. Where is your 'logic' here? 6. How can I (and I didn't) assert that God is a black woman when I don't believe in God? Aha, now I see some advantages in never having any thoughts of your own. Well, I can't. What could those advantages possibly be? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 0:52:29 GMT
Aha, now I see some advantages in never having any thoughts of your own. Well, I can't. What could those advantages possibly be? You get to bully people and think it's not you doing it. Here's a startling fact. Most of what I say is not my original thought either. The concept of free will has been well understood for centuries before I was born. It's not like I'm "bullying" anyone. These things are just true. Deal with it. Gender roles were understood centuries before I was born. The only reason so many people disagree with me is that their "team" has been led astray. Their faith in science was not really scientific enough and they lost their way. That's you. You lost your way because you believed in science more than you should. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 20, 2018 1:18:19 GMT
Well, I can't. What could those advantages possibly be? You get to bully people and think it's not you doing it. Here's a startling fact. Most of what I say is not my original thought either. The concept of free will has been well understood for centuries before I was born. It's not like I'm "bullying" anyone. These things are just true. Deal with it. Gender roles were understood centuries before I was born. The only reason so many people disagree with me is that their "team" has been led astray. Their faith in science was not really scientific enough and they lost their way. That's you. You lost your way because you believed in science more than you should. No, they are not. Stupid, inaccurate and irrelevant statement. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 1:24:24 GMT
... No, they are not. ... Stupid, inaccurate and irrelevant statement. I'm sure glad you haven't started bullying people. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 1:28:26 GMT
... No, they are not. ... Stupid, inaccurate and irrelevant statement. I'm sure glad you haven't started bullying people. You might want to cut down on the evidence though. That can hurt. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 20, 2018 2:41:18 GMT
Heck no.
I would never do that.
It would be unChristian.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 20, 2018 11:53:36 GMT
Adam and Eve had every choice in the Garden of Eden but one.
Really? What would that choice have been?
I tell you the truth including about yourself as I see it. I have no intention of harming you.
Well, I suppose that's fortunate, otherwise you'd have failed in that objective. As to 'telling me the truth about myself', that's not only a bit hubristic, I have to say I can't see where you've told me anything about myself, true or otherwise. If you're referring to that habit you have of denigrating the intelligence of others the better to support your notion that you're the most intelligent person in the room, that tells more of a 'truth' about you than it does about me, or anyone else you've attempted that tactic on.
That you assume I am a "follower of Christ" without ever being told any such thing shows what a tangled mess your understanding of religion is.
Ah then, if you're not and are simply playing devil's advocate, perhaps you should identify yourself as such. And if my understanding of religion is a 'tangled mess', it's surely no more a tangled mess than your attempts to explain any aspects of it have been. So if you're positing yourself as the way, the truth and the light, I suggest you go back to the want ads and seek another vocation. A funny thing about science and free will is that there are posters here who think science has established there is no free will. I rather suspect though that the prefrontal lobe of the brain has some connection, however remote, to free will since cutting it out was at one time considered a solution for people whose "free" behavior was dangerous to themselves and others. It made them compliant "vegetables" in a manner of speaking. If everyone got a prefrontal lobotomy then you could decide yourself what "perfect" is and tell them to do that. I wouldn't go along though. For one thing I doubt you have a clue what perfect is. I think you should get a prefrontal lobotomy first if you think they're such fine things. We'll see how it works out. Maybe then you'll see what's perfect. I don't believe they're allowed anymore, but they might make an exception in your case. Your precis of pre-frontal lobotomy is all quite interesting, but has nothing at all to do with the fact that the Genesis account, if taken at face value, clearly indicates that god apparently did not mean for his creations to know free will. What science has or has not 'established' has no place in this particular discussion. Confine yourself to the point at hand. You have no clue as to what 'perfect' is either, beyond the dictionary definition, as no imperfect human being can possibly comprehend that state or condition. As we are instructed by pretty much all of the major religious philosophies, many of the secular ones, and--provided we have sufficient humility--plain old horse sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 12:10:09 GMT
... the Genesis account, if taken at face value, clearly indicates that god apparently did not mean for his creations to know free will. .. It would be easier for you to read Genesis if you realized two important things. One is that the Bible was never intended to replace live prophets. The other is that a large body of religious speculation and observation exists from which the Bible was extracted. Although not counted as "inspired" that information can help you understand the "inspired" parts. If you have no religious traditions of your own a way to access some of the additional materials is the work of John Milton. However setting those additional materials aside, there is no clear indication that god never intended his creations to have free choices. They in fact had all freedom in Paradise but one concerning evil. I suspect you're assuming that any limitation on freedom means a total absence of freedom. It does not. Although humans have "free will" they still can't jump over a house no matter how much they work out. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 20, 2018 14:53:17 GMT
... the Genesis account, if taken at face value, clearly indicates that god apparently did not mean for his creations to know free will. .. It would be easier for you to read Genesis if you realized two important things. One is that the Bible was never intended to replace live prophets. The other is that a large body of religious speculation and observation exists from which the Bible was extracted. Although not counted as "inspired" that information can help you understand the "inspired" parts. If you have no religious traditions of your own a way to access some of the additional materials is the work of John Milton. However setting those additional materials aside, there is no clear indication that god never intended his creations to have free choices. They in fact had all freedom in Paradise but one concerning evil. I suspect you're assuming that any limitation on freedom means a total absence of freedom. It does not. Although humans have "free will" they still can't jump over a house no matter how much they work out. Uh-huh. That's a neat evasion, but an evasion nonetheless. And why not just we jump to the chase and read that 'inspired' for what it really is: mythic gobbleydegook created by primitive peoples? Grimm's Fairy Tales contain more internal logic than the Genesis story. While we're at it, let's just admit that the bible contans no 'literal' truth whatsoever; it's a collection of tribal legends, genealogical tables, and attempts to explain natural events for which the people of those times had no other explanation than through the supernatural. The Genesis stroy is worthless as any attempt to explain human free will or the lack of same. I've read Paradise Lost, and Milton in general extensively: the poem is a beautiful rearranging and imaging of the Judeo-Christian creation myth and its attendant ramifications, but I'd hardly take it as a non-fictional account of historic record. |
|
hanswilm
Sophomore
old imdb name was Hans-Wilhelm but this site tweaked it to hanswilm
@hanswilm
Posts: 679
Likes: 416
|
Post by hanswilm on Sept 20, 2018 15:40:15 GMT
This is a very complex subject. This is basically getting down to the difference between God's permissive will (what he allows to happen) vs. God's intentional will (what he specifically causes).
Based on the Christian scriptures these two verses layout perfectly what God's will is....vs. what he allows to happen by letting us have complete freedom.
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance."........." I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
God wants all people to be saved and wants all to seek him and believe in him and live with him in his eternal kingdom according to these verses.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Most people will not be saved, most will rebel, reject God, curse God and refuse to believe and repent and will end up in destruction. This is apparently what will literally happen and God allows it. It is a mystery. As a Christian I question, if you know they will rebel, you know they'll miss heaven, if you know this.....than why even create them? It would be more merciful that they never existed. I don't have the answers. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 19:17:56 GMT
It would be easier for you to read Genesis if you realized two important things. One is that the Bible was never intended to replace live prophets. The other is that a large body of religious speculation and observation exists from which the Bible was extracted. Although not counted as "inspired" that information can help you understand the "inspired" parts. If you have no religious traditions of your own a way to access some of the additional materials is the work of John Milton. However setting those additional materials aside, there is no clear indication that god never intended his creations to have free choices. They in fact had all freedom in Paradise but one concerning evil. I suspect you're assuming that any limitation on freedom means a total absence of freedom. It does not. Although humans have "free will" they still can't jump over a house no matter how much they work out. Uh-huh. That's a neat evasion, but an evasion nonetheless. And why not just we jump to the chase and read that 'inspired' for what it really is: mythic gobbleydegook created by primitive peoples? Grimm's Fairy Tales contain more internal logic than the Genesis story. While we're at it, let's just admit that the bible contans no 'literal' truth whatsoever; it's a collection of tribal legends, genealogical tables, and attempts to explain natural events for which the people of those times had no other explanation than through the supernatural. The Genesis stroy is worthless as any attempt to explain human free will or the lack of same. I've read Paradise Lost, and Milton in general extensively: the poem is a beautiful rearranging and imaging of the Judeo-Christian creation myth and its attendant ramifications, but I'd hardly take it as a non-fictional account of historic record. You have a lot of rules and I don't believe you realize that you're the one making them up. I'd be all for you making up rules if I thought they would do anyone any good. I just don't believe yours will. I think it's important for you to understand that they do not exist outside your imagination. There isn't really anything "logical" about them. A really great movie is The Ten Commandments. They still play it every year on television about Passover/Easter time, even though most people have it on DVD by now. It's an interesting story about one of the most widely appreciated moral codes ever. You have presented no moral code. You don't even have a movie, much less a good one. All you do is sit around complaining how other people don't follow what you imagine is your logic. There is no "reason" for me to listen to you. You really have nothing to say now and aren't likely to have anything later. Your concept of "truth" and "logic" is just your expectation of simplicity run amok. If you made a movie, and I doubt you could, it would not make any money. There was a peak in atheism about 2012 or so, but even then you probably would not get your investment back. I think it's important for you to understand that you have not been appointed dictator, despite the recent rise in atheism. Society has a way of working these things out and atheism is indeed falling of its own weight. It really doesn't require much help from me. Society puts blame on free agents, not parents of those free agents after some number of years. That's the reality. It doesn't matter whether you think its logical. It doesn't matter what myths or truths you think it's based on. It doesn't even matter whether they are myths or truths. It's just the way society has worked it out over time. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 20, 2018 20:46:29 GMT
This is a very complex subject. This is basically getting down to the difference between God's permissive will (what he allows to happen) vs. God's intentional will (what he specifically causes).
Based on the Christian scriptures these two verses layout perfectly what God's will is....vs. what he allows to happen by letting us have complete freedom.
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance."........." I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
God wants all people to be saved and wants all to seek him and believe in him and live with him in his eternal kingdom according to these verses.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Most people will not be saved, most will rebel, reject God, curse God and refuse to believe and repent and will end up in destruction. This is apparently what will literally happen and God allows it. It is a mystery. As a Christian I question, if you know they will rebel, you know they'll miss heaven, if you know this.....than why even create them? It would be more merciful that they never existed. I don't have the answers. This issue of free will is the archetypal example of emotional blackmail for the purposes of controlling people. As you so succinctly point out, it is a huge contradiction which results in a no win situation if you actually succumb to the myth. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 20, 2018 21:39:23 GMT
Uh-huh. That's a neat evasion, but an evasion nonetheless. And why not just we jump to the chase and read that 'inspired' for what it really is: mythic gobbleydegook created by primitive peoples? Grimm's Fairy Tales contain more internal logic than the Genesis story. While we're at it, let's just admit that the bible contans no 'literal' truth whatsoever; it's a collection of tribal legends, genealogical tables, and attempts to explain natural events for which the people of those times had no other explanation than through the supernatural. The Genesis stroy is worthless as any attempt to explain human free will or the lack of same. I've read Paradise Lost, and Milton in general extensively: the poem is a beautiful rearranging and imaging of the Judeo-Christian creation myth and its attendant ramifications, but I'd hardly take it as a non-fictional account of historic record. You have a lot of rules and I don't believe you realize that you're the one making them up. I'd be all for you making up rules if I thought they would do anyone any good. I just don't believe yours will. I think it's important for you to understand that they do not exist outside your imagination. There isn't really anything "logical" about them. A really great movie is The Ten Commandments. They still play it every year on television about Passover/Easter time, even though most people have it on DVD by now. It's an interesting story about one of the most widely appreciated moral codes ever. You have presented no moral code. You don't even have a movie, much less a good one. All you do is sit around complaining how other people don't follow what you imagine is your logic. There is no "reason" for me to listen to you. You really have nothing to say now and aren't likely to have anything later. Your concept of "truth" and "logic" is just your expectation of simplicity run amok. If you made a movie, and I doubt you could, it would not make any money. There was a peak in atheism about 2012 or so, but even then you probably would not get your investment back. I think it's important for you to understand that you have not been appointed dictator, despite the recent rise in atheism. Society has a way of working these things out and atheism is indeed falling of its own weight. It really doesn't require much help from me. Society puts blame on free agents, not parents of those free agents after some number of years. That's the reality. It doesn't matter whether you think its logical. It doesn't matter what myths or truths you think it's based on. It doesn't even matter whether they are myths or truths. It's just the way society has worked it out over time. You're using a considerable amount of verbiage to tell me that you have nothing to say to me. In one sense, you're quite correct--these heaping portions of word salad you keep dishing up, spiced with what you apparently think are killingly denigratory digs at my intelligence are, quite truthfully, saying nothing at all.
When you've rid yourself of that profound case of Smartest Person in the Room Syndrome (wherein the sufferer is incapable of realizing that not only is he not the smartest person in the room, he is ranking pretty near the bottom third of the room's occupants, no matter how adroit he might be with his placement of words on a page), we can continue this discussion on a possibly more fruitful basis. As long as you remain incapable of continuing a debate without reliance on ad hominems that fall flat, there's really not much point. There are users here who can engage in that tactic much more colorfully and effectively than yourself. And since you would seem to have little enough of substance to say without reliance on this, it all becomes at least doubly pointless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 20, 2018 21:54:42 GMT
You have a lot of rules and I don't believe you realize that you're the one making them up. I'd be all for you making up rules if I thought they would do anyone any good. I just don't believe yours will. I think it's important for you to understand that they do not exist outside your imagination. There isn't really anything "logical" about them. A really great movie is The Ten Commandments. They still play it every year on television about Passover/Easter time, even though most people have it on DVD by now. It's an interesting story about one of the most widely appreciated moral codes ever. You have presented no moral code. You don't even have a movie, much less a good one. All you do is sit around complaining how other people don't follow what you imagine is your logic. There is no "reason" for me to listen to you. You really have nothing to say now and aren't likely to have anything later. Your concept of "truth" and "logic" is just your expectation of simplicity run amok. If you made a movie, and I doubt you could, it would not make any money. There was a peak in atheism about 2012 or so, but even then you probably would not get your investment back. I think it's important for you to understand that you have not been appointed dictator, despite the recent rise in atheism. Society has a way of working these things out and atheism is indeed falling of its own weight. It really doesn't require much help from me. Society puts blame on free agents, not parents of those free agents after some number of years. That's the reality. It doesn't matter whether you think its logical. It doesn't matter what myths or truths you think it's based on. It doesn't even matter whether they are myths or truths. It's just the way society has worked it out over time. You're using a considerable amount of verbiage to tell me that you have nothing to say to me. In one sense, you're quite correct--these heaping portions of word salad you keep dishing up, spiced with what you apparently think are killingly denigratory digs at my intelligence are, quite truthfully, saying nothing at all.
When you've rid yourself of that profound case of Smartest Person in the Room Syndrome (wherein the sufferer is incapable of realizing that not only is he not the smartest person in the room, he is ranking pretty near the bottom third of the room's occupants), we can continue this discussion on a possibly more fruitful basis. As long as you remain incapable of continuing a debate without reliance on ad hominems that fall flat, there's really not much point. There are users here who can engage in that tactic much more colorfully and effectively than yourself.
So it has come to your attention at last that if a thirty year old commits a crime, his parents are not legally responsible. Whether he actually has a free will or not is irrelevant, because society treats him as if he did have the choice rather than his parents. What you think of me or yourself doesn't really matter then. Does it? |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 20, 2018 22:06:33 GMT
You're using a considerable amount of verbiage to tell me that you have nothing to say to me. In one sense, you're quite correct--these heaping portions of word salad you keep dishing up, spiced with what you apparently think are killingly denigratory digs at my intelligence are, quite truthfully, saying nothing at all.
When you've rid yourself of that profound case of Smartest Person in the Room Syndrome (wherein the sufferer is incapable of realizing that not only is he not the smartest person in the room, he is ranking pretty near the bottom third of the room's occupants), we can continue this discussion on a possibly more fruitful basis. As long as you remain incapable of continuing a debate without reliance on ad hominems that fall flat, there's really not much point. There are users here who can engage in that tactic much more colorfully and effectively than yourself.
So it has come to your attention at last that if a thirty year old commits a crime, his parents are not legally responsible. Whether he actually has a free will or not is irrelevant, because society treats him as if he did have the choice rather than his parents. What you think of me or yourself doesn't really matter then. Does it? Are you actually, in some physiological capacity, incapable of engaging in a debate without constructing a strawman? |
|
