[Zzyzx]

[ttruscott]

I asked ttruscott to prove that somehow.. some Bible reference or something, because the idea of free will is HIGHLY controversial.

( He won''t answer me, I think he just ignores me altogether )

Not altogether, BC. There are two things I find vexatious...rudeness and saying that I wrote or meant things opposite of what I wrote or meant. I have taken you off ignore and put you back on twice. <shrug>

My proof of our free will is limited to the logic of the premises of a Christian GOD who is loving and righteous and who created us for the purpose of our marriage to HIM since that marriage is the end result of the day of judgement and the end of this world.

True love and a true marriage can only arise from a free will. Period. Free means not to be forced/coerced to make a certain decision (YES, yes I love you!) and not to be disallowed / constrained for making any choice out of the available options...(no I don't want to marry you but I just can't bring myself to say it!).

No one who rejects a belief in GOD and
No one who rejects the witness of the Bible about our heavenly marriage has any reason to believe HE created us with a free will or that we have a will free of the coercion of our dna, family values and social morés.
BUT a free will pre-earth doesn't mean we get a free will on earth for Jesus Himself said that the person who sins is enslaved / addicted to sin implying they cannot save themselves from sin.

[marco]

Supposedly for sure! Adam looked through all the animals for a mate while he named them! Whose idea was that to mate with an animal? GOD's? Not at all as HE had Eve planed.

I understand the Judaic Talmud, Yebamoth 63a, documents Adam having sex with all the animals in the Garden of Eden until he FINALLY had sexual intercourse with Eve, once God belatedly delivered.

I think an entirely figurative interpretation of early Genesis is the sensible course. a bumbling Adam, possessed of libido, isn't even good fiction.

So how did Adam get the idea? Perhaps GOD told him about Eve and he freaked, proving he was not righteous at that time before they ate.

This is anachronistic morality.
There is nothing inherently wrong in primal man seeking fellowship with any of the living creatures around him.

Naked means also crafty but that must mean anything except that they were crafty before eating!

Yes, you are coming round to the view that God did create moral evil.... as well as earthquakes.

No, sir...He does not say HE creates evil, He says HE hates evil and will destroy it whenever HE can

How odd of God to let Satan exist for so long, given this pious vow. Or do we now have a God limited in power?

[marco]

You constantly switch between the meanings of evil as moral evil or as a disaster to people. Disasters are not morally evil. They are judgements charged against the moral evil of some by a righteous judge and therefore not evil.

I do indeed, ttruscott. I don't wish to suggest that God limited himself in the kind of evil he created. That would be unfair.
Go well.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 230 by ttruscott]



Place your bets, ladies and gents !!

I asked ttruscott to prove that somehow.. some Bible reference or something, because the idea of free will is HIGHLY controversial.

( He won''t answer me, I think he just ignores me altogether )

Not altogether, BC.

OHHHHHHHHH... there you are !!

There are two things I find vexatious...rudeness and saying that I wrote or meant things opposite of what I wrote or meant. I have taken you off ignore and put you back on twice. <shrug>

AND COUNTING

My proof of our free will is limited to the logic of the premises of a Christian GOD

So, you think that you have PROVED free will by taking your interpretation of the Bible God for GRANTED? Taking something for GRANTED isn't demonstrating that it's true.

Now, you not only have to prove that free will exists, but that your personal take on the Bible god is true. Good luck with both !!

True love and a true marriage can only arise from a free will. Period.

I love it when people try to prove a point by showing us how CLOSED MINDED they are.

Free means not to be forced/coerced to make a certain decision (YES, yes I love you!) and not to be disallowed / constrained for making any choice out of the available options...(no I don't want to marry you but I just can't bring myself to say it!).

Is that what free will means? .... Or is that your superficial take on the concept?
It would perhaps be NICE if you would ever bother to PROVE any of your wonderful pronouncements. I guess...... back on ignore. But, I like the joke. Humor DOES help, from my point of view... we get so SERIOUS in here... grrrrrrrr

No one who rejects a belief in GOD and
No one who rejects the witness of the Bible about our heavenly marriage has any reason to believe HE created us with a free will or that we have a will free of the coercion of our dna, family values and social morés.

Now, you have told us that you know EVERYONE. I don't THINK that you actually do.... No one? Prove it !!

BUT a free will pre-earth doesn't mean we get a free will on earth for Jesus Himself said that the person who sins is enslaved / addicted to sin implying they cannot save themselves from sin.

Another unproved and quite PECULIAR pronouncement. Do you REALIZE that when you write like that, it's really just PREACHING?

Being preached at is BORING, ttruscott.... very very boring and preaching proves NOTHING.

I'm taking bets that you will ignore me again.... any takers?

[marco]

So, you think that you have PROVED free will by taking your interpretation of the Bible God for GRANTED? Taking something for GRANTED isn't demonstrating that it's true.

And you take things for granted as well, not least the entertainment value of your superfluous comments on posters. He is offering justification for his perfectly reasonable position. Because you disagree, doesn't diminish him but the way you choose to disagree doesn't enhance your own case.

You don't win arguments by suggesting your opposition has a prima facie weaker case than your own, whatever that might be.

[Elijah John]

So, you think that you have PROVED free will by taking your interpretation of the Bible God for GRANTED? Taking something for GRANTED isn't demonstrating that it's true.

And you take things for granted as well, not least the entertainment value of your superfluous comments on posters. He is offering justification for his perfectly reasonable position. Because you disagree, doesn't diminish him but the way you choose to disagree doesn't enhance your own case.

You don't win arguments by suggesting your opposition has a prima facie weaker case than your own, whatever that might be.

Moderator Intervention

BC, Marco, let's get back to the topic please. Reading only this post (including the quote from BC), I am not able to even glean the topic debated here, other than each other. This "snapshot" does not advance the debate topic. Thank you.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[ttruscott]

No, sir...He does not say HE creates evil, He says HE hates evil and will destroy it whenever HE can

How odd of God to let Satan exist for so long, given this pious vow. Or do we now have a God limited in power?

For those who don't know the many times this has been answered who might think it speaks any Spiritual truth...

The parable teaches clearly that the postponement of the judgement day happened when some of HIS good, that is, elect, people became sinners.

imPCECo:
- GOD called for all HIS elect to come out from among the condemned ones and to repudiate any love for them.

- Some of HIS elect rebelled against the judgement as too harsh for too little a sin, not believing the reprobate tares could not be saved or that their evil would exponentially grow.

- Therefore YHWH put the day of the judgement on hold until the day of harvest when HIS good seed are ready to be harvested into HIS barn, that is, they are righteous and holy and willing to stand with HIM on the judgement having had the nature of the evil of their former friends proven to be eternal and unable to repent.

GOD's only limit in this instance is that HE is limited by HIS promise to save HIS elect from all sin and that HE will never condemn them but will always do whatever it takes to restore them to HIM and their first free will decision to accept HIM as their GOD. When they became evil by rejecting the call to judgment, they forced HIM to wait for them to repent and become righteous so they would not be pulled up with the devil's tares.

[ttruscott]

You constantly switch between the meanings of evil as moral evil or as a disaster to people. Disasters are not morally evil. They are judgements charged against the moral evil of some by a righteous judge and therefore not evil.

I do indeed, ttruscott. I don't wish to suggest that God limited himself in the kind of evil he created. That would be unfair.
Go well.

Your method of inclusion smells amazingly like a conflation of the two ideas to convince those who are partial to think they are the same. I suggest we make it clear that moral evil, which refers to all true evil, is not the same as a disaster which is is called evil because of the pain it causes but which as a righteous judgment is the opposite of evil, that is, is the epitome of righteousness.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 236 by ttruscott]

No, sir...He does not say HE creates evil, He says HE hates evil and will destroy it whenever HE can

What do you think of Isaiah 45:7 ?

American Standard Version
"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things."

It sure seems that Jehovah is bragging about creating SOMETHING that isn't too good there.. what do you think?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 237 by ttruscott]

Your method of inclusion smells amazingly like a conflation of the two ideas to convince those who are partial to think they are the same. I suggest we make it clear that moral evil, which refers to all true evil, is not the same as a disaster which is is called evil because of the pain it causes but which as a righteous judgment is the opposite of evil, that is, is the epitome of righteousness.

Disaster is righteous evil?

So, if a plane crashes and everyone on board dies... it was righteous evil?

How so?

And what does that have to do with Satan being a competing god?