7thangel

We are made in God's image, same as like the computer Deep Blue made to have "intelligence." God had given us more superior knowledge than that of the computer Deep Blue. (OTOH, had any of the chess grandmaster beat "Deep Blue?")

We function exceedingly more complicated than the computer Deep Blue. Science is furthering to that discovery. In fact, I believe, most scientist, if not all, do not believe in free will at all.

Taken in exact what my theology is, and understanding really the consequences of God being the creator of ALL things, therefore God is not really subject to morals, nor of good/evil.

For to whom/what would He subject His morality? God, existing as the sole being with "free will," meant morality does only depends on himself. And hence God is the creator of ALL things, He is not subject to good nor evil. So what is moral and immoral unto Him, nothing.

Just imagine when only one being exist, what is moral and immoral unto him? Morality is objective to people with free will. If there is only one person exists with free will, then morality becomes subjective, being there is only one participant in morality.

Now, God had given us an image like unto him; "knowing good and evil." But note that God gave us the image, like the computer Deep Blue having an image like human that can think. Deep Blue's intelligence is actually given by it's inventors. Deep Blue's intelligence is actually a program installed by it's inventor. Deep blue cannot go beyond the program. It cannot make itself wise, nor make itself a fool.

The same we are as an invention of God. We cannot function more than that which God had given us, we cannot even make anyone fool or wise. And you know what? as the scientists proves that our thinking is mere mechanical and biological in nature it even proves man to be lacking free will. And if man's intelligence is like mere complicated machine, like how Deep Blue is, being deterministic according to their physicality, could we really consider ourselves moral being? No, everyone is thinking according to the predestinistic nature of the compostion of their brains. The wise will be wise and the fools will be fools. Whichever way, through science, or theism, I am right to say that man is actually void of free will, and therefore not a moral being.

7thangel

"Pmurray said:It is morally reprehensible to predstine people to eternal suffering."

7thangel: There is no literal hell, if that is what you mean. But with regards to suffering, Well.... in the resurrection we will still get hungry and feel pain, and would probably need the necessities of life, though their is no more death. But imagine this: would I really feel and eternal blessing singing Glory, glory hallelluiah? No, God promised us eternal life and resurrection, this whole earthly experiences is surely my great praise unto my God.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by erimir
At any rate, the most important question is:

If our actions are predetermined, how is the existence of Hell at all justified? Is it good for God to create people he knows will go to hell? Why wouldn't he just make everyone so that they're good, and so that everyone will go to heaven?

Or do you not believe in Hell?

Their is actually no literal hell, or the eternal torturing fire.

Good and evil is only subjective unto our being, see my response to Mat..Brain. God created us to be resurrected and live eternally, that is good. But them who are destined to destruction and death, that is evil. On a different perspective, God is playing the material in His hands. He is not bound by any rules whatever to make of the materials in his hands. So if other materials were only used for the furthering of the best cyborgs He could make, then He can do so as He pleases. If we are the "glorius cyborgs" God intentionally created for God's own glory, then we are just been given glory according to God's grace. Strict predestination explains that grace of God.

Jobar

KOY AND 7THANGEL-
The exchange between you two is certainly related to EoG, but is far more of an argument over Biblical interpretation. So what I am going to do, is copy this whole thread to BC&H; the two of you continue your dispute there, and the rest of those addressing 7th should do so here. This will, I think, allow both forks of this thread to continue in the appropriate forum. Jobar.

Amlodhi

Hello 7thangel,

You seem to feel that your disbelief of a literal burning Hell justifies a predestinational stance. However, regardless of what you think Hell might entail, if there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, it can hardly be a pleasant place.

The question then is this. If you now have, or ever do have a family, imagine that for some reason God himself tells you that while you are among the elect, unfortunately your wife, son and young daughter were predestined to Hell before they were ever born and nothing you or they can ever do will change that. Too bad, but I am the Potter, and all that.

Would you then tell your little daughter, "Yes sweetheart, Daddy will be going to wonderful heaven but you will be going to terrible Hell forever . . . I know, but God is GOOD!"

Would you also then, when you get to your wonderful Heaven, bow down and sing the praises of such a fiend?

Just curious . . .

Amlodhi

7thangel

I say this with all honesty, if you cannot figure my supposed response, it is not worth explaining to you anything. You are probably thinking I have a mental disorder.

Amlodhi

With all honesty, being well familiar with the works of Augustine, John Calvin and the apostle Paul, I'm actually not in need of having you explain anything.

My post was a direct question to you regarding your position. One to which you seem to have some difficulty addressing with a direct answer.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

7thangel

Agustine and Calvin are Trinitarians and believe in Hell, I am not a trinitarian and I do not believe in hell. Calvin and Augustine believes in free will, I also do not believe that man has free will. So I guess, I really differ to them big time.

Now, given my understanding of God Hell is impossible. If there will be hell in the afterlife, I will surely have no peace within myself, even if my kids, families, or friends are not in such an eternal torment.

Amlodhi

RE: Trinitarian - How is being or not being a Trinitarian relative to predestinational doctrine?

RE: Calvin and Augustine believed in free will (?)

No they didn't.

Augustine: "Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God's gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some, while to some it is not given. . ."

Augustine: "Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world . . .God elected believers; He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so. "

Augustine: "I ask, who can hear the Lord saying, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you," and can dare to say that men believe in order to be elected, when they are rather elected to believe. . ."

(From: "A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints";
Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.)

Calvin "God is said to set apart those whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children."

Calvin "If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take place by his sovereign appointment."

Calvin "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation. . ."

(From: "Institutes of the Christian Religion"; John Calvin)

I would be interested to know whether you believe that:

1) The afterlife for the non-elect is semi- pleasant?

2) Non-existence awaits the non-elect after death?

3) And what support you have for your opinion.


Namaste'

Amlodhi

7thangel

Honestly, I did not read the book of Augustine and Calvin. I actually was reading them, but when I cannot get sense on what they are saying, I just stopped.

The reason I concluded that Augustine do not believe in free will is because he is a Catholic saint, and the Catholics do believe in free will. Of Calvin, however, he believed that God, through his foreknowledge, sees who will be saved, and God not interfering unto it, rather let them as they are. Again, I might be wrong about Calvin, neither of Catholicism. But thus is what I infered from even the believers.

Even from Christians today, they speak of God's salvation through predestinationalistic sense, yet do still hold to believing in their Free Will. And when argument about the subject ensues, you will see their difference to mine.

1. What you meant semi pleasant? In any case, let me have an answer if I got you right. Life without hardship is not worth living for in the end. I like to get hungry, so I can be satisfied. I want to be loved, to have somebody to share. If I will have no necessities in the afterlife, I would really wonder what can of life that be. The presence of necessities maybe semi-pleasant as you can see, but it is the very same reason we have wonderful life sustaining such necessities. Now, if atheists themselves in this world had a great meaning in this present evil world, what is more of the afterlife where there is real peace against dangers of death and of hurt from others?

2. Yes.

3. Sure. First, the land flowing with milk and honey to be inherited "eternally" by Israel(actually the whole elect including the gentiles) is actually the earth. Isaiah said, "For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. Here are some of references regarding the righteous inheriting the earth:

Psalms 37:9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.

Psalms 37:11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

Psalms 37:29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.

Psalms 37:34 Wait on the Lord, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.

Isaiah 60:21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

The kingdom of Christ is actually here on earth. Psalm says, "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. And also, it says, "His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth."

Without resurrection, the promises of God would be vain. Paul said, "Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Christ also said, "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"

.

Johann_Kaspar

Here you are saying it all. Would be time enough to admit that nothing as interpreted by the christians makes sense.

You are not being able to understand christian texts, you are drawing wrong conclusion proving only your ignorance.

Is somebody able to explain me what is the point to discuss anything with someone so opinionated who should first read the texts and make himself able to understand them?