Free Will and Religion

[McGinn77]

No, a duck is a fowl; a species of bird. We gave it the name duck and can associate the actual animal with the name we gave it. A black hole, according to theory is a collapsed star. The collapsing causing such massive gravity that anything around it gets pulled into it; even light. I can prove to you what a duck is. I can go to one and point it out and say “there’s a duck”. If it lets me, I can reach out and touch it, smell it, and even kill it and cook it for dinner. You cannot do this with a ‘black hole’. You can only theorize that what you are observing from millions of light years away that a black hole (the name science has given this event) is a collapsed star and that it’s actually pulling everything in to it.

No, a black hole is a region of space time where gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light can escape. Gravitational collapse (what you're talking about with the star) is one of at least 4 theories on how they form. So now, ask me the question on how black holes form. The answer we aren't sure yet.

I can observe human behavior and deduce from that behavior that there is – theoretically – a God. From written documents, to people erecting massive structures, to archeological evidence I have deduced (just as you have with black holes) that there is a God. Although I can’t actually show you this God, you can’t touch it, smell it, or kill it and cook it for dinner, the behavior around it indicates to me that it exists.

Then I contend that Mickey Mouse is god. He has countless followers who wear his image on clothing and put them up in their homes. Books, film and other media too numerous to mention are dedicated to him. People live by the principals and morals described in those works (friendship, fairness, forgiveness). And roughly 120 million people per year attend his 5 "temples" world wide. Entire channels on television are dedicated to him. And let's not forget that in a national poll, Mickey Mouse was more recognizable than Jesus to young children.

 

[PsyOps]

No, a black hole is a region of space time where gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light can escape. Gravitational collapse (what you're talking about with the star) is one of at least 4 theories on how they form. So now, ask me the question on how black holes form. The answer we aren't sure yet.

That’s what you’re told it is. Did you actually go there and see it, touch it, here it quack? Just because you can apply Newton’s law to OBSERVATIONS of objects around this event doesn’t mean it’s what you say it is. Yet, you’re not even sure how black holes are formed, yet you’re sure what you’re seeing is a black hole.

Then I contend that Mickey Mouse is god. He has countless followers who wear his image on clothing and put them up in their homes. Books, film and other media too numerous to mention are dedicated to him. People live by the principals and morals described in those works (friendship, fairness, forgiveness). And roughly 120 million people per year attend his 5 "temples" world wide. Entire channels on television are dedicated to him. And let's not forget that in a national poll, Mickey Mouse was more recognizable than Jesus to young children.

Well, I would counter that Mickey Mouse does not have the following of worship and recognition of God as the Christian God (Yahweh). There are no documents to this effect. There is no historical or archeological data to back this up. Mickey Mouse has followers as a cartoon character. FAIL again; and silly comparison!

 

[UNA]

Oh, I dunno… String theory, global warming, multiverses, parallel universes… Ya got me? :shrug:

String theory is a theory, no one is claiming that you are wrong if you don't view it as valid NOR is anyone condemning you to Hell NOR is anyone fighting any wars over it.

Global warning IS happening, that isn't nor was it ever the question. The question is whether humans are causing it and whether can/should do anything about it. Again, no one is claiming that you are wrong if you don't view it as valid NOR is anyone condemning you to Hell NOR is anyone fighting any wars over it.

Multiverses/parallel universes is (again) a theory, and again (again) no one is claiming that you are wrong if you don't view it as valid NOR is anyone condemning you to Hell NOR is anyone fighting any wars over it.

THEORY =/= FACT

Proposing a theory is in no way equal nor even comparable to religion. What is your hang up on this? Science is not claiming to have all the answers, religion is.

It’s about appropriately holding someone/something accountable for something they ‘created’ placed into the wrong hands. You dismiss free will. In this discussion, you discount any possibility of free will with God in the picture. Having power and not using it = God!

I AM A GOD!!! ...and so are you (I assume) and everyone else probably. We have power and we don't use it, I have the power to kill another human, I don't Q.E.D. (according to you) I am God!

Seriously though, He does use it, He HAS used it. That's all I'm saying. If He used it once, who is to say He doesn't use it now?

Furthermore, if what you're saying is true (that He has the power and doesn't use it) then the Bible cannot be the infallible word of God. He didn't tell/guide/influence what Paul wrote, Paul wrote what he wanted which means he inserted his own opinions/interpretations/prejudices.

Either God interferes (no true free will) or He doesn't (Bible is fallible).

If you want to call it ‘allowed’ so be it. I call it His nature. It’s just how things are. You want to place God in this little box that He created everything so you can say “see, He did this and made that happen”. In a world with God, you refuse to accept that things still, by nature, have their opposites.

So He isn't perfect (since evil is in His nature)? Or how He didn't create everything? Even if God had a more limited hand in it all (i.e. didn't directly allow nor create evil) and evil is just natural, then why didn't he create a world in which this was possible? He's all-powerful, He had the power to create it differently.

His Goodness is not defined, or constrained, by the things you purport He did through extension of what we do. His goodness is defined by His holiness, without sin. How can you or I or anyone try to comprehend infinite purity? His goodness is defined by creating a world where we have choices. Because we make a certain choice, because God placed it in front of us, does not mean God is flawed. Just because God knew what we were going to do doesn’t mean He MADE us do it. I used the analogy before… Just because I knew when I dropped a rock from a tree that it would hit the ground doesn’t mean I MADE it hit the ground. I had knowledge of gravity. God has a certain knowledge of things that we can’t understand. Because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

I'm not contending that He has knowledge of things and whether or not that is good or bad. He commands and influences the lives of people in the Bible. That removes (even if just for one act) the individual's free will and so a free will believing Christian cannot be sure they're acting on theirs. He guided Paul's writings, maybe He's guiding yours. Just because you might be OK with that doesn't mean you're still acting on free will.

 

[McGinn77]

That’s what you’re told it is. Did you actually go there and see it, touch it, here it quack? Just because you can apply Newton’s law to OBSERVATIONS of objects around this event doesn’t mean it’s what you say it is. Yet, you’re not even sure how black holes are formed, yet you’re sure what you’re seeing is a black hole.

No, that IS what it is. What causes orbits. GRAVITY. If several bodies are orbiting what looks like blank space it is caused by GRAVITY. Something is causing that to happen, that something we call a black hole.

Well, I would counter that Mickey Mouse does not have the following of worship and recognition of God as the Christian God (Yahweh). There are no documents to this effect. There is no historical or archeological data to back this up. Mickey Mouse has followers as a cartoon character. FAIL again; and silly comparison!

And your counter would be wrong. There are thousands of amusement parks in the US, for adults most of them would be more fun than Disney World, yet they are willing to spend well over $1000 per person to go to Disney instead. Not because it's an amusement park, because they could have gone to almost any park for cheaper, but because it's Disney World. That's a awful lot of worship and recognition. People don't like mice, they are viewed as a pest, a dirty, disease carrying rodent. But people LOVE Mickey Mouse. People get tattoos of Mickey Mouse. Are you telling me, the willingness to have a corporate logo permanently stamped on your skin isn't worship?

And, as we've been over before, show me the historical or archaeological data that supports god existence as being a fact. Not that people believe in god, no argument there, but actually data that points to the existence of god.

 

[PsyOps]

No, that IS what it is. What causes orbits. GRAVITY. If several bodies are orbiting what looks like blank space it is caused by GRAVITY. Something is causing that to happen, that something we call a black hole.

“What looks like”. There you have it. You can’t see it, yet you try to tell us that’s what it is. Maybe what’s causing it to happen is……………………….. wait for it…………………………………… GOD!

And your counter would be wrong. There are thousands of amusement parks in the US, for adults most of them would be more fun than Disney World, yet they are willing to spend well over $1000 per person to go to Disney instead. Not because it's an amusement park, because they could have gone to almost any park for cheaper, but because it's Disney World. That's a awful lot of worship and recognition. People don't like mice, they are viewed as a pest, a dirty, disease carrying rodent. But people LOVE Mickey Mouse. People get tattoos of Mickey Mouse. Are you telling me, the willingness to have a corporate logo permanently stamped on your skin isn't worship?

And, as we've been over before, show me the historical or archaeological data that supports god existence as being a fact. Not that people believe in god, no argument there, but actually data that points to the existence of god.

Oh for crying out loud… I’m not even going to go down this silly road, except to say you're being purposely obtuse about the definition of ‘worship’.

You really need the historical and archeology data that supports God? Here is some info:

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

Has Archaeological Evidence for Jesus Been Discovered?

Surprising Archaeological Find: Proof of Jesus' Existence? - Good News Magazine | United Church of God

Archeology and the Bible

Archaeological evidence for YHWH Elohim in the Torah of the Bible - YouTube

Archaeology Proves The Bible - YouTube

Then there’s the pesky little thing called the bible.

 

[Starman3000m]

Regarding Discrepancies:

Matthew and Luke give contradictory genealogies for Jesus...

Hi UNA: The genealogy of Jesus is a very key and important issue regarding Jesus being the descendant to David's Throne. In fact, the Jewish people are very meticulous about making sure that the correct descendancy is recorded which is a determining factor for being a High Priest - and, in this case, The Jewish Messiah.

What appears to be a "discrepancy" is that the genealogy of Jesus was recorded from both His mother's side and Joseph's side. Keeping in mind that Joseph is Jesus' adopted father (not paternal) since Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit through the virgin birth by Mary, as recorded in the Bible.

This may help:

1: Are you aware that Jewish lineage/descendancy is based upon the bloodline from the mother's side - not the father's? A child born to a Jewish mother is "Jewish". However, if a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish wife, their children are not considered "Jewish" lineage.

2: Mary's descendancy from Nathan is the bloodline that ties in to the Davidic lineage. So, by this direct blood line, Jesus qualifies for being the Jewish Messiah that had been prophesied by being a descendant from King David. Since Joseph is not the "father" then Jesus' direct genealogy to David is through Mary's bloodline.

3: If a Jewish husband adopts a child then the child becomes an heir to the step-father's privileges as if he had been a natural born child of that father.

3.5: BTW: The Bible states that non-Jewish people (Gentiles) are considered as "adopted sons and daughters" of God when they place faith in Jesus as being the Son of God/Jewish Messiah/Saviour of mankind. They become Children of God through adoption.

4. Thus, through the combined genealogies of both Joseph and Mary Jesus is more than qualified to be the heir to David's Throne, assume the position of Jewish High Priest and, most importantly, have the qualifications for being the Jewish Messiah whom the Othrodox Jews still await. The "seeming discrepancy" of Jesus' genealogies that you cited is because one was tracked through Joseph's genealogy and the other from Mary's genealogy.

BTW: Here is a site that will give a bit more of the explanation:
Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?



God's Promises to the Born-Again Believer in The New Testament Jesus Christ:

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
(Romans 8:15-17)

You too can be an adopted Child of God into His Family through placing faith and trust in Jesus Christ as mentioned in the Bible. Ask.

 

[UNA]

Regarding Discrepancies:



Hi UNA: The genealogy of Jesus is a very key and important issue regarding Jesus being the descendant to David's Throne. In fact, the Jewish people are very meticulous about making sure that the correct descendancy is recorded which is a determining factor for being a High Priest. What appears to be a discrepancy is that the genealogy of Jesus was recorded from both His mother's side and Joseph's side. Keeping in mind that Joseph is Jesus' adopted father (not paternal) since Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit through the virgin birth by Mary, as recorded in the Bible.

This may help:

1: Are you aware that Jewish lineage/descendancy is based upon the bloodline from the mother's side - not the father's? A child born to a Jewish mother is "Jewish". However, if a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish wife, their children are not considered "Jewish" lineage.

2: Mary's descendancy from Nathan is the bloodline that ties in to the Davidic lineage. So, by this direct blood line, Jesus qualifies for being the Jewish Messiah that had been prophesied by being a descendant from King David. Since Joseph is not the "father" then Jesus' direct genealogy to David is through Mary's bloodline.

3: If a Jewish husband adopts a child then the child becomes an heir to the step-father's privileges as if he had been a natural born child of that father.

3.5: BTW: The Bible states that non-Jewish people (Gentiles) are considered as "adopted sons and daughters" of God when they place faith in Jesus as being the Son of God/Jewish Messiah/Saviour of mankind. They become Children of God through adoption.

4. Thus, through the combined genealogies of both Joseph and Mary Jesus is more than qualified to be the heir to David's Throne, assume the position of Jewish High Priest and, most importantly, have the qualifications for being the Jewish Messiah whom the Othrodox Jews still await. The "seeming discrepancy" of Jesus' genealogies that you cited is because one was tracked through Joseph's genealogy and the other from Mary's genealogy.

BTW: Here is a site that will give a bit more of the explanation:
Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

Your link concludes that Luke is following the line of Mary except that Luke explicitly says:

Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, ...

What about the other things I listed?

 

[Starman3000m]

Your link concludes that Luke is following the line of Mary except that Luke explicitly says:

​

What about the other things I listed?

"As supposed" means that people "believed" Joseph was the father. He wasn't.

I'll get to the others a bit later this evening.

 

[McGinn77]

“What looks like”. There you have it. You can’t see it, yet you try to tell us that’s what it is. Maybe what’s causing it to happen is……………………….. wait for it…………………………………… GOD!

You do realize, by saying that god made black holes, you're still conceding that black holes do exist right?

Oh for crying out loud… I’m not even going to go down this silly road, except to say you're being purposely obtuse about the definition of ‘worship’.

Pay attention to definition 4.

You really need the historical and archeology data that supports God? Here is some info:

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

http://christianthinktank.com/jesusref.html

Has Archaeological Evidence for Jesus Been Discovered?

Surprising Archaeological Find: Proof of Jesus' Existence? - Good News Magazine | United Church of God

Archeology and the Bible

Archaeological evidence for YHWH Elohim in the Torah of the Bible - YouTube

Archaeology Proves The Bible - YouTube

First, my favorite excerpt:

the evidence and arguments from science stack up overwhelmingly against a literal interpretation of the Flood story.
link

Now on to my other point. Apparently you forgot this:

There is no (that is none, zero, not a speck) of archaeological evidence for the existence of god. There is archaeological evidence that some of the events of the Bible took place (mostly the battles of the old testament). The evidence of a battle or that a building once stood somewhere at best only proves (assuming said building was a holy place or the battle was fought for religious reasons) that people believed there was a god, not that there actually was. This argument then is the exact same as the first one, basically "people have believed in god for a long time".

The only other thing was to seem to prove that Jesus was a real person. I'm not now, nor have I ever questioned that Jesus was a real person. But proving that Jesus lived no more proves god exists than proving Mohammad lived.

Of course, now that you mention it, not one of the writings that are even claimed to be written by anyone who might have known Jesus personally (The Epistles of Peter) offer no biographical information for Jesus. Paul for his part never met Jesus and never once quotes him to says really anything about his life. The Gospels do mention biographical information, but diverge greatly on the details and we know were not written until at least 65 CE because of dated contemporary events mentioned in the gospels.

Also, Josephus (who people always like to point as the extra biblical evidence) was born in 37 CE. Yeah, right around the time Jesus DIED. His first work was published in 75 CE, meaning the Gospels are out and available to influence his work.

Then there’s the pesky little thing called the bible.

 

[b23hqb]

You do realize, by saying that god made black holes, you're still conceding that black holes do exist right?



Pay attention to definition 4.



First, my favorite excerpt:



Now on to my other point. Apparently you forgot this:



The only other thing was to seem to prove that Jesus was a real person. I'm not now, nor have I ever questioned that Jesus was a real person. But proving that Jesus lived no more proves god exists than proving Mohammad lived.

Of course, now that you mention it, not one of the writings that are even claimed to be written by anyone who might have known Jesus personally (The Epistles of Peter) offer no biographical information for Jesus. Paul for his part never met Jesus and never once quotes him to says really anything about his life. The Gospels do mention biographical information, but diverge greatly on the details and we know were not written until at least 65 CE because of dated contemporary events mentioned in the gospels.

Also, Josephus (who people always like to point as the extra biblical evidence) was born in 37 CE. Yeah, right around the time Jesus DIED. His first work was published in 75 CE, meaning the Gospels are out and available to influence his work.

DUDE, DUDETTE, whatever, you are an atheist, right?

Yo are what we are. We, as Christians, are what we are.

Go for it. You will lose. There is coming a day when you will see God, and believe.

But in your current mindset, it will be too late.

You, and you alone,will have to deal with eternity. You will not see your friends. Family. Total alone-ness. Forever.

You will have to deal with it.

Alone.

Other than that, have a nice day.

 

[Railroad]

 

[Starman3000m]

In continuation...

ONLY Matthew and Luke bother to mention the virgin birth:

That's actually enough to establish the prophetic birth of Jesus, born of the seed of a woman (Genesis 3:15) with the documented genealogy that points to Jesus being Heir to the Throne of King David and valid qualifications for being the Jewish Messiah. However, what also must be considered is that all of the New Testament accounts mention Jesus Christ as being The Son of God, Lamb of God, Messiah, Saviour of mankind, etc.

That could only have been possible by Jesus being born of a virgin lest His Blood would have been tainted by the corrupt seed of Adam. The Bible mentions that sin is passed down from "one man", Adam. (Romans 5:12) If Jesus would have had an "earthly father" His Blood would have been tainted with the sin-seed of Adam which would have then negated Christ's pure Atoning Blood.

Matthew and Luke don't agree on when Jesus was born
They don't agree on why Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem

Not to worry. Even my mother forgot my birth date and couldn't remember when or where I was born at times! There were so many kids in my family she would even forget my name and call me by another. lol

Okay, to answer your question about this, here is a site where you can find your answer that is of "Biblical" proportions:
Why do Matthew and Luke have DIFFERENT accounts of the birth of Jesus?

There are also discrepancies WRT history and the OT prophesies:

For example????

 

[McGinn77]

DUDE, DUDETTE, whatever, you are an atheist, right?

Yo are what we are. We, as Christians, are what we are.

Go for it. You will lose. There is coming a day when you will see God, and believe.

But in your current mindset, it will be too late.

You, and you alone,will have to deal with eternity. You will not see your friends. Family. Total alone-ness. Forever.

You will have to deal with it.

Alone.

Other than that, have a nice day.

One wonders why someone who doesn't care would take the time to chime in at all....

 

[McGinn77]

It's standard operating practice on here.

 

[ItalianScallion]

1) This (bolded above) is the problem. He may stop you, if He may (and does at any point, which He has) then you don't have TRUE free will.

Do you have total free will? You might not think God would stop you from doing something but I can guarantee you He has w/o you knowing (or admitting) it.

2) The assumption that God is perfect is a big one, it amazes me how easily some people jump to it. If you're comparing God's intervention to that of a parent, then I will compare God's commands in the OT to that of a corrupt world leader. God commanded the mass murder of numerous people's namely the Canaanites. There have been corrupt world leaders throughout history who have also commanded the mass murder of people's. We call that genocide and we view this a one of the greatest atrocities ever committed. A human committed genocide and it was bad. God committed genocide and it was...?

Justified. Since God is the author of all life He is justified if He does that and even if He tells His people to do it (as He did many times before).

 

[PsyOps]

You do realize, by saying that god made black holes, you're still conceding that black holes do exist right?

Need I remind you again that I never said black holes don’t exist? Need I remind you, again, that I am using the same criteria that you use against God to challenge something’s existence; that it requires a level of faith that it exists?

My point about what you’re seeing in deep space may just be God swirling stuff around to make you think it’s some sucking vortex of massive gravity. I mean if God is playing games with free will, why not also play games in fooling us to believe space works a certain way? No, I don't believe that's what's happening. I'm just trying to make a point.

Pay attention to definition 4.

Well, it’s a good thing we’re not talking about that definition. There is no church of Mickey Mouse. There is no God called Mickey Mouse. You do not have the Gospel of Mickey Mouse. I’m not sure why someone with your intelligence is using such a lame comparison.

Now on to my other point. Apparently you forgot this:

There is no (that is none, zero, not a speck) of archaeological evidence for the existence of god. There is archaeological evidence that some of the events of the Bible took place (mostly the battles of the old testament). The evidence of a battle or that a building once stood somewhere at best only proves (assuming said building was a holy place or the battle was fought for religious reasons) that people believed there was a god, not that there actually was. This argument then is the exact same as the first one, basically "people have believed in god for a long time".

I gave you just a tad of info on ‘evidence’. Even with the massive numbers of believers over the millennia, nothing is going to be convincing to you. So, it’s not that there isn’t evidence; you just reject the evidence provided. And I wouldn’t expect anything different from you.

The only other thing was to seem to prove that Jesus was a real person. I'm not now, nor have I ever questioned that Jesus was a real person. But proving that Jesus lived no more proves god exists than proving Mohammad lived.

We can’t really prove that Socrates was a real person either; yet I’m sure we agree he was. But, proving God… this just gets us back to our old debate; I can no more prove God exists than you can prove black holes exist. You can throw all the scientific equations, videos and photos of space, etc… but you’re still left with something way out there in space that you can’t really see, you can’t go to and touch, smell, experience firsthand. You have the same evidence I have; you have things around it behaving a certain way that tells you it exists. That’s good enough for you. I’m with you on that.

But there is a part of this discussion I’ve decided to not even deal with because we’ll never get past the physical justifications you’re looking for; and that’s faith. THAT is my evidence. Remember my assertion that no matter what you try to explain to me about how something in our universe works (like gravity) I can always ask ‘why’? Well, there are parts of our universe that we just can’t explain. No matter what explanation you try to give, the question ‘why’ can always be thrown in there. The same is true about the belief in a God. There is something in the human psyche that causes people to have ‘faith’ in things: God, science, etc… Your belief that things that appear to exist is nothing more than placing your faith in certain elements (like numbers, and observations) to convince you they are true. Not one bit of it goes into the depth of explaining why these things happen the way they do. Why does mass attract so that pieces cling together in space to make objects like moons and planets, and those objects having enough mass to attract, or hold, other objects to it? We can explain how these things happen; but we can’t explain why. Well, from that aspect, I can’t explain why I believe there is a God.

 

[PsyOps]

It's standard operating practice on here.

You're kidding right? You are as engaged in this dead horse as can be. Look in the mirror dude.

And if Railroad has a problem with dead horses, then why does he feel he has to keep reminding us of them? There are plenty other places for him to go.

 

[Starman3000m]

You're kidding right? You are as engaged in this dead horse as can be. Look in the mirror dude.

And if Railroad has a problem with dead horses, then why does he feel he has to keep reminding us of them? There are plenty other places for him to go.

The Bible states that "There is nothing new under sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

That means that everything we have been posting and discussing in these threads has been hashed and rehashed many times over throughout the past centuries. There will always be old subjects that are revived for discussion - hey, that's human nature! I agree, PsyOps, that if anyone has a problem with "dead horses" then it is time to move on because the philosophical/religious discussions/debates and contentions will go on as long as people have questions and are searching for answers.

Some things, like scientific theories may never be settled or proven until one comes to the knowldedge of what is Truth. And, yes, There Is Only One Truth to everything even about the existence of God and the Deity of The New Testament Jesus Christ as Messiah and Saviour of mankind for those who place faith in Him.

BTW: McGinn, dearest UNA actually resurrected this "dead horse" 178 posts ago. so... LOL

 

[McGinn77]

You're kidding right? You are as engaged in this dead horse as can be. Look in the mirror dude.

And if Railroad has a problem with dead horses, then why does he feel he has to keep reminding us of them? There are plenty other places for him to go.

I'm fully aware that I'm doing it. That would be why I did say "they like to do that" or "these other people".

 

[McGinn77]

BTW: McGinn, dearest UNA actually resurrected this "dead horse" 178 posts ago. so... LOL

Not complaining about it. If I had a problem with it I'd just stop posting and do something else. Just warning Railroad so he/she knows if the thinks it's happening in this thread to be ready for it to happen in every thread.

Especially with the 4 of us involved in this one (and a few others) because done of us want to give up .