malookiemaloo

Good to see you on the Sec. Web, Bilkly Graham is Cool. More Christians needed-especially level-headed apologetics.

I notice in this thread references to 'free will'. I have a problem with this. Our wills are not 'free' at all. They are sinful. The only freedom we have is a freedom to rebel against God and to sin. Strictly speaking, Adam and Eve were the only ones ever to have 'free will'.

Views anyone?


m

Mageth

I notice in this thread references to 'free will'. I have a problem with this. Our wills are not 'free' at all. They are sinful. The only freedom we have is a freedom to rebel against God and to sin. Strictly speaking, Adam and Eve were the only ones ever to have 'free will'.

So, A&E didn't have "free will" to rebel against God and sin? If so, how did they manage to sin? Or they also had "free will" not to rebel against God and sin? If we don't have it, then how does anyone ever come to God?

Anyway, it's a dark, dismal little picture you've painted for yourself, there. A shame it's all based on a myth. Realistically speaking, there was no Adam and Eve.

malookiemaloo

Ignoring the usual jibes re the alleged non-existence of Adam and Eve, you actually raise a good point ie if we don't have free will, how does anyone ever come to God?

Easy answer. God Himself comes to people.

I know this raises further difficult questions viz. why does God apparantly call some and not others. No easy answer as far as I can see. But what explanation of the meaning of life not have difficult unanswerable questions?


m

Mageth

Ignoring the usual jibes re the alleged non-existence of Adam and Eve,

It's not a jibe; it's a fact. It's a wake-up call. The Genesis account has been proven to be a myth. There was no literal Adam and Eve.

you actually raise a good point ie if we don't have free will, how does anyone ever come to God?

Easy answer. God Himself comes to people.

I know this raises further difficult questions viz. why does God apparantly call some and not others. No easy answer as far as I can see.

Here's an easy answer: some believe the myth and thus "hear the call", while others have heard the "wake-up call" and don't believe the myth.

But what explanation of the meaning of life not have difficult unanswerable questions?

Simple: there is no Meaning (upper case M) of Life. Any meaning (lower case m) to life one has to work out for oneself.

Cross Examiner

Mr. Bond (aka Philosoft):

What, to believe without reason? I would never ask you to. Jesus did not ask those who knew Him to do that either. He said, among many other similar passages, that: "The very works that I do bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me" (John 5:36). Now, assuming our predecessors were no less human than we, would He posit this unless those listening actually saw Him perform some inexplicable act? That is, if He didn't do miraculous things, wouldn't another say: "Hey! We've not seen you do anything special you crazy liar!" and wouldn't Jesus be aware of such obvious forthcoming objections? And yet he persisted to say you've seen me do great works?

Accordingly, I would not tell my neighbors that they've seen me do amazing works because it would be obviously false, emprically so (unless mowing my lawn is amazing). So it stands to reason that He expected those who saw Him do such things to believe on account of His works. But we know from the continuation of this chapter that they did not, because it went against all they held in their heart, as is typically human to do.

As I've paraphrased before, and as Paul asserts here:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Romans 1:20). You will be held liable for failure to acknowledge God's creatorship. I've studied the Cosmological models and they would not meet the criteria of plausible deniability in any courtroom, much less one where the Judge knows everything.

No doubt He could. But this was the way He chose. If creation was His goal, as we may assert, He had to choose some way, this is that way. If He chose some other way, invariably someone would complain about that one also as being insufficiently evidential of His handiwork. Humans are not so rational as we like to think ourselves; bear in mind 12 of 12 jurors actually thought OJ was innocent.

OK. A process rather than an event. You are still responsible for your beliefs, no matter how you came to them. Does your process of skepticism change your complicity in the denial of God's creatorship or Christ's resurrection? You have ample circumstantial evidence for both. You choose, via process, event, self-determination or other, what evidence you consider most.

The serial rapist/killer is a product of his abusive father, an unloving mother and an otherwise less-than-optimal childhood. Society still holds him accountable for the free-will he did exercise. If that is worthy of him being dead-to-rights and incarcerated or executed, so be it.

As stated before, you are currently enjoying the goodness of God. Right now. This very moment as you are reading. You have all you need to live and all you need to choose wisely. There comes a point, after death, where all this will change, for the better or for the worse, depending upon your choices and actions.

Wrong focus. It is you who abandon God and you'll be painfully aware of such a seperation. And as far as I am aware, the goodness of God is present even at Disney World. That is, you are truly not seperated right now. As you read this, God is offering you chance upon chance to come to Him. There is a point though that your chance will expire, as will you, and you will have lost all claims to ignorance or "honest mistakenness".

You don't walk in the faith of things you don't have 100% explanation for? Then you must never leave your house. You have sufficient reasoning ability and evidence to conclude in God's creatorship and Christ's resurrection. You have chosen not to persistently investigate such things. Skepticism is as old as man. There is no argument you hold that, in concept, differs from your skeptical ancestors.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:21.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. Psalm 53:1.

Wyz_sub10

I just want to address this "side point" because I think it is critical to the overall argument.

The "not guilty" verdict does not imply that 12 out of 12 thought OJ was innocent.

It means that 12 out of 12 jurors did not feel OJ was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Big, big difference.

Mageth

You have sufficient reasoning ability and evidence to conclude in God's creatorship and Christ's resurrection. You have chosen not to persistently investigate such things.

There you go again with one of those unfounded, ridiculous Xian assertions we hear around here all the time.

I've personally persistently investigated such "evidence" for going on 48 years. I continue to investigate various aspects of the universe. My conclusion thus far: a mythical god did not create the universe (as depicted in the obviously mythical Genesis accounts), and Christ's resurrection is a myth.

So stop making such outlandish declarations about what we atheists do or don't do, choose or don't choose. The fact is, you have no idea what I, Philosoft, or any other poster on this board has chosen to do.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

And the wise man shouts it from the mountaintops.

theophilus

Contrary to what Mageth says, this is NOT a good observation (whatever he means by "good").

It is a silly observation as are all atheistic arguments which are based on false premises:

1. People are not judged on their "relative merit." They are judges by the standard of God's righteousness and are ALL found lacking.

2. People are not judged by "what they did with them" (sic), i.e., the Gospels (sic) - there is only one gospel. People are already under condemnation. The "gospel" is "the power of God to salvation."

3. There are no "good souls" and no one is saved because he is good. "There is none righteousness, no not ONE; ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Golgo_13

Sooo... those that are unaware or are otherwise completely superfluous to Christian gospel go to hell reguardless?

Mageth

Contrary to what Theophilus says, 1) there is no god to serve as judge, 2) there is no "condemnation", and there is no god to offer "salvation", and 3) there are no souls, and there is no God to glorify.

All Christian theistic arguments are based on false premises. The whole "sin/condemnation/judgment" bit is the artifact of a primitive blood-sacrifice religion that debases and divides humankind and keeps us, individually and collectively, from realizing our true potential. I would call this silly if it wasn't so tragically harmful.