|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 12, 2006 14:07:56 GMT -5
God is not OMNIbenevolent, but He is benevolent.
God does indeed DESIRE the best for all creation, but He cannot GIVE the best to all creation. Why? Because He is angry at the wicked everyday, and the just desert of a sinner if hell. He does however give the wicked sunlight, water, rain, etc., but He does not give them His love because you do not give Him your love.
"You reap what you sow". If you disobey God by breakibng His law and rebelling against His commandments, then you sow hatred toward God. Jesus said, "If you love me keep my commandments" and you dont. Therefore you sow hatred, and reap the same.
Once one repents, puts there faith in Jesus Christ, andl lives in total obediance to Jesus in conformity to His written word, then you can be saved. Heaven will be you just desert if you are a Christian, If you are a heathen, hell is your just desert. One thing you often forget (I speak to the heathen) is that God's love stands AGAINST sin. The most loving thing He could have done is create hell.
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Jul 12, 2006 15:16:25 GMT -5
Evidence? We are talking about Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah right?
Evidence?
We'll start with that.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jul 12, 2006 19:18:10 GMT -5
Excellent work, Evan. But, if you'll go back and look at the syllogism thread, you'll see that this was my point all along. You didn't really refute my syllogism. You actually just confirmed it. You just gave my conclusion a nicer spin. I never said that God couldn't be benevolent sometimes. It's even possible that God is benevolent much of the time. I never claimed God was omnimalicious. But recognize that if God is not omnibenevolent, then by definition he is sometimes cruel. And, subjectively, most people would reason that a semibenevolent God is imperfect.
Evan is absolutely correct on this one. God only has to do one nice thing to be described as benevolent. Hypothetically, if their God did exist ... then he invented the orgasm. Conclusion: that God would be benevolent. Just not omnibenevolent. Evan's admission supports my arguement. I'm pleased. He just took one step closer to the dark side. MWAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Jul 12, 2006 19:22:24 GMT -5
Ah, that is what he was referring to.
Congrats for the formal acceptance of larry's correctness =D.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 16, 2006 20:03:28 GMT -5
No, you are quite mistaken, I have not stepped "to the darkside" as you would say.
God is still the perfect creator and righteous judge that the Bible says He is.
Ironically, your conclusion still stands false because God did indeed create everything perfect. Man chose to disobey God and therefore creation fell. Jesus came to restore the right relatiship between man and God. When one puts their trust in, and chooses to obey Jesus that relationship is restored. You just have to accept the fact that you are guilty.
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jul 16, 2006 23:56:47 GMT -5
No, you are quite mistaken, I have not stepped "to the darkside" as you would say. God is still the perfect creator and righteous judge that the Bible says He is. Ironically, your conclusion still stands false because God did indeed create everything perfect. Man chose to disobey God and therefore creation fell. Jesus came to restore the right relatiship between man and God. When one puts their trust in, and chooses to obey Jesus that relationship is restored. You just have to accept the fact that you are guilty. I went over this about ten times already. If we were created perfectly, then we wouldn't have given in to sin. If the garden were created perfectly, there wouldn't have been a tree of life or a serpent. You admit yourself, god is not omnibenevolent. God is semibenevolent, which means he is also semimalicious. There is nothing false about my syllogism, you are just rehashing the same tired and easily refuted criticism again. You are also using the word "ironically" in an incorrect way, but that's alright because most people can't use the word ironically correctly.
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Jul 17, 2006 0:18:35 GMT -5
Ironic, isn't it ;D
|
|
|
Post by larryflint4prez on Jul 17, 2006 0:54:27 GMT -5
Now that is a clever and correct of the word. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 18, 2006 14:31:00 GMT -5
Free Will is one aspect of perfection.
|
|
abb
Full Member
Posts: 163
|
Post by abb on Jul 19, 2006 0:34:57 GMT -5
That is what Larry was trying to prove in the other thread. Accept the fact that you proved him right, and move on ^.^
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 30, 2006 0:09:12 GMT -5
evan, free will is one aspect of relativism, not perfection...or any other concept that may be linked to an illusory religion.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 30, 2006 9:02:35 GMT -5
Free will is nothing more than the freedom to choose. Whether or not the choice is correct is not up to the person choosing, but rather the lawmaker who set the stadard of choice. You see, you again mix and match truth as you see fit, but you still are wrong. We have the freedom to choose btween to standards right (obedience to God) and wrong (obediance to the devil). These are set principles that we choose to obey, they are not relative.
You must remember that your naturalism has skewed your thinking. I am not a naturalist. You cannot affirm naturalism and free will as they are opposites.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 0:57:45 GMT -5
you said that i am wrong, yet this is a argument for relativism.
after all, you live in two different worlds. you abide by god's laws, first and foremost, i am assuming; and secondly, according to romans thirteen, to obey man's laws IFF (if and only if) they do not interfere with god's laws.
am i right, or wrong? answer this, and we'll continue later.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 15:25:10 GMT -5
No I ONLY answer to God. If mans laws interfere with God's laws, there are not to be followed. Not relative, absolute.
I dont live in two worlds, This world is God's world. This is one way you try and fool Christians. There is only one world, God's world whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 15:34:34 GMT -5
i agree with you, relativism! your truth stands alone, and my truth with it. well now, since we have that settled i suppose there is nothing further to discuss. heh, unfortunately its not as simple as that because you refuse to see that there are two sides to every coin...
i understand that you answer only to god and that you believe that he is the universal, absolute truth. this is fine and dandy except that you do in the physical world, and you must adhere by man's laws...whether you like it or not.
i am sure you believe there is consequences for every action, and one of god's own laws is to follow man's laws IFF it does not interfere with his grand scheme of things. i am not sure how you can ignore this blatant fact.
i live in one world: the physical world.
however, followers of religion, such as yourself enter into another world of faith. we call this the spiritual world. you believe in morality and law outside of man's laws, and you believe in a being that does not reside in the physical world, regardless of what you may say.
i will say it again. this is all fine and dandy, but you need to admit that people other than yourself actually exist. we do not adhere to your metaphysical universe, nor do believe it to be the truth. you, and others, do. good for you.
i agree. god is the absolute truth.....to christians.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 16:32:47 GMT -5
No, reletavism claims there is no exclusive truth. But like I said before, it also exclusively makes this claim and what you mean to say is that all truth that is not exclusive is true. So YOU exclude Chrisianity because it claims to be exclusive.
Your truth does not stand, as it is not truth, but lies. The Bible is the only TRUTH. People have different BELIEFS but there still is only one truth: The Bible.
Your beliefs do not negate truth. I can jumo from a ten story buidling and not believe in the law of gravity, that doesnt change the fact that it exists. You beleif does not interfere one bit with the truth of God's word. However the truth of God's word will one day interfere with your belief.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 17:05:29 GMT -5
my beliefs do not negate truth because my beliefs are true...to me. your beliefs are true to you. this is why there is so much friction and interference of 'truths' between societies and individuals. this is why there is war, and perhaps a good reason why there is 'evil.'
unfortunately, there is a difference between us. i am willing to implement my truth into the universal puzzle, and let others coincide with me, peacefully. you, and other christians like you, will not.
you have to own the truth for yourselves, and you will pay any price to make it so, even if the price is at the expense of [our] lives, or livelihoods.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 17:29:39 GMT -5
But your beliefs are not true as the Bible (my first principle) says they are not. If they are true to you than what if they are not true to me. It could be true for me to find you on the street and wal up and punch you in the face and steal your wallet (morally speaking) but would that be true for you? Most likely not as you morality would not match up to mine in that instance.
1) There is only one TRUTH and that is absolute. The Bible is the only truth. Therefore you will have to prove the Bible wrong before anyone needs to listen to your so-called truth because I have thoroughly refuted you entire world view.
2) You are arguing from a presupposition that is self refuting. Reletavism is not and never can be true as it is self refuting. Since this is your presupposition, and it is self refuting, then your entire world view is self refuting.
3) Your argument begs the question. You cannot say, simlpy because you argue that all truth is relative, that all truth is conclusively relative.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 17:37:07 GMT -5
no, no, no, no...evan...i have to prove the bible wrong to you before you will listen to my 'so-called truth.'
unfortunately, i do not have any truth that you so desperately need because you already own the truth. right? so, why did you even respond to this or any of my posts?
...if your truth is not in question, and if your truth is not in danger of being wrong, why are you so eager to prove me wrong?
i am not trying to prove you wrong, so do not try to throw my own words in my face. i simply stated that your truth is true...to you...and that my beliefs are real to me.
this should make everyone happy. i nod my head and agree that your truth is universal, and practice what i want in real life. i make my own choices, suffer the consequences, but have a hell of a time doing it.
why should the world revolve around your beliefs? oh, i forgot, because its absolute...to you.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Jul 31, 2006 17:49:25 GMT -5
Here is exactly what I affirm: The bible is universally absloute.
I dont want you to perish in hell, which is why I will argue until you finally see that your epistImology is entirely self refuting.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 18:27:29 GMT -5
funny thing. i do not call what i believe by fancy terms. i wonder why? ...maybe its because i do not take it seriously in the first place, maybe that is why im agnostic. after all, agnostics are not bound to one truth and one truth alone, or any element of truth, regardless of how you classify it...or how evil you make it sound by capitalizing the 'i.'
i am objectively seeking the truth. i am not arguing christianity because i align myself with legions of satan under the banner of liberals, communists, and evil scientists bent on world domination and destruction of christianity. hell, ive never voted for a liberal in my life...and you should be lucky im telling you that much of my private life. i don't agree with one certain political or religious agenda. i give you my word on that, take it as you will, but i make my own decisions.
i am here because i am interested (in religion) as much as i believe that some of you guys are extremists and should be stopped--not you particularly.
i do not need you to help me find the truth. cool?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 13, 2006 11:01:32 GMT -5
Oh, I capitalized the I because Larry Ron made fun of my literal spelling with a Y
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 14, 2006 12:01:01 GMT -5
funny, but it actually makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by anodomini on Aug 14, 2006 16:02:36 GMT -5
That's very true. But the good Lord himself knows who will burn or who will not. It is not your place to judge them, heathen. Repent and come back to Christ, before you give these heathens that advice. You are no better than they are.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 15, 2006 10:06:33 GMT -5
i wish that christians would humble themselves, instead of standing on soapboxes to elevate themselves...
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 15, 2006 13:32:59 GMT -5
Dusty,
That is a good quote. But sadly very wrong. We humble ourselves by standing on the soapbox. It is VERY humbling to stand on a soapbox and preach the gospel. We do it out of obedient love to God and a love for you guys.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 16, 2006 11:32:11 GMT -5
i doubt it. i look at jesse's newsletters and am tempted to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 23, 2006 12:47:00 GMT -5
presuppositions dusty, you have colored lenses.
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Aug 24, 2006 13:08:29 GMT -5
This has been interesting to read through. I hear arguements like thes often as we are out witnessing and answering questions. Many who have Dusty's position, I find are single people without children.
It amazes me how quickly a person outgrows that thought when their own kids say "why" to everything you tell them. You say it is time for this and they say "why". You say eat this and get "why"............
See how quickly even they learn to say "because I said so and I am your parent and have the right to set the house rules!"
Funny how many learn that not having fixed points or standards lead to anarchy and confusion. You child can have convictions that icecream are his truth for food for dinner every night, but parents know they are wrong, even when they think they are right.
Do you see my point?
The point is this Dusty, all of creation shows forth rules. Rules of gravity, thermodynamics etc. All these laws are real, tested, observeable and tested. You have confidence that (if you car is working properly) it will start when you turn the key. You are confident that when you step on the brakes, friction will allow you to stop. You confidently leave a house/apt and do not worry that gravity will be gone and you might fly off into space at any time.
These standards allow you to not worry about every detail of everyday, yet we are so used to them, we take them for granted.
If moral laws were not seen by most people as acceptable, we could never establish governments, laws, court systems, decide which side of the road we should drive on ...........
Those who argue for their "own truth" ignore the hypocrisy that they want truth in almost every aspect of their lives, but don't want them in areas they choose to control themselves.
Selfishness drives our own lusts and desire to satisfy ourselves. When one becomes a parent, they suddenly tend to look out for their children's interests ahead of their own.
They may have hated their parents rules, and then suddenly one day see they have become their mom/dad. Suddenly they see how just and wise rules were, and that they weren't meant to restrict and control, but were implemented out of love and teach discipline which can be a good thing in life to have.
God too is righteous, just, loving, and therefore has rules to live by. He is entitled to have house rules, if He Created the house and everything else, don't you think?
Just as your parents were justified, and you will be justified if you have a family to set rules, in your house and enforce them; God is too.
Being opposed to God having rules at all must be overcome first. If God created you, you are subject to Him and the rules around you. You can decide to say "I'm no longer going to follow the laws of gravity, I just refuse to!" See if that works. Try jumping off a high building, or beter still, start with a chair. See if you can overcome God's law of gravity from the chair. Try and see how long you can refuse to breath. See how long you can refuse to eat and drink.
Go into a store and give them $1 for a whole cart of groceries, and see if your truth and their fit together.
In this world, rules, standards, and laws (both physical and moral) are all around us. Thank God the physical ones offer us a life we can count on, and knowledge of limits that beyond which real dangers and perils are 100% gaurenteed (like jumping off buildings, or grabbing a live 220 v wire).
Be reasonable and see that if the God we talk about, the God of the Bible is truly the Creator God, and will judge you on Judgement Day according to His 10 Commandments as a standard of righteous, how would you fare? Have you lied, stolen, looked with lust, disobeyed parents, denied His as God, seen a god to suit your likes and dislikes, coveted, hated a person without cause? Would you honestly be guilty or innocent? Would you deserve heaven or earn hell?
If the wages of sin is death, what wouyld you deserve?
God commended His love towards us that while we were yet sinner, He died for us.
Dusty, God knew you would eventuall come to a point that you needed to see that He was real, and you were guilty on Judgement Day. He sent His Son Jesus Christ, to pay your fine for your transgressions, if you will believe on Jesus and live for Him. I think that is an amazing and loving God to offer Himself for you and allow you to chose to accept and love Him back, or pay for your own crimes, which you knew were wrong, even if your tried to ignore your conscience. See I know He placed that law on your heart and gave you a conscience to bear witness to them (Romans 2:14-15) because everyone I meet has also.
You can listen to that tugging or ignore it, but your fate is then your own. May His truth unblind strongholds of satan.
Jack Jackson.
|
|