# Destiny and Free Will



## pacer

Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?


----------



## theword

pacer said:


> Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?



God never said man has free will. The religious Jews and Romans added their religious ideas to the original writings of the prophets and saints to control their people and make a living off of them. This was all planned and created by our Creator, God, as a delusion to keep His people deceived from the Truth while He draws out His servant from this delusion and lets us prophets and saints know what's going on. 

The prophecies are about the flesh perishing during this age and the saints coming with "good news" that ALL God's people will be saved from this world as their flesh perishes. The religious people couldn't understand the prophecies so they didn't get changed much, at least not enough for our Creator to teach the deeper meanings of them to us saints. 

Everything was created by our Creator, even our decisions. 

Acts 17: 24-31
24: *The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man*, 
25: *nor is he served by human hands*, as though he needed anything, since *he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything*.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

pacer said:


> Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?



Christianity teaches nothing of the sort.


----------



## pacer

Quantum Windbag said:


> Christianity teaches nothing of the sort.


Can you elaborate because it seems to be mentioned quite a bit in these forums.  Also, here is a link to various scriptural references.

God's Sovereignty vs. Free Will


----------



## pacer

Well then let me rephrase the question.

Does Christianity teach/state/suggest/imply God gaves us free will?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

pacer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches nothing of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate because it seems to be mentioned quite a bit in these forums.  Also, here is a link to various scriptural references.
> 
> God's Sovereignty vs. Free Will
Click to expand...


Elaborate on something that isn't actually in the Bible? Or on something that is?


----------



## daws101

theological determinism VS FREE WILL  

Free will and theological determinism[edit]

Main article: Free will


A simplified taxonomy of philosophical positions regarding free will and theological determinism.[7]
There are various implications for metaphysical libertarian free will as consequent of theological determinism and its philosophical interpretation.
Strong theological determinism is not compatible with metaphysical libertarian free will, and is a form of hard theological determinism (equivalent to theological fatalism below). It claims that free will does not exist, and God has absolute control over a person's actions. Hard theological determinism is similar in implication to hard determinism, although it does not invalidate compatibilist free will.[7] Hard theological determinism is a form of theological incompatibilism (see figure, top left).
Weak theological determinism is either compatible or incompatible with metaphysical libertarian free will depending upon one's philosophical interpretation of omniscience - and as such is interpreted as either a form of hard theological determinism (known as theological fatalism), or as soft theological determinism (terminology used for clarity only). Soft theological determinism claims that humans have free will to choose their actions, holding that God, whilst knowing their actions before they happen, does not affect the outcome. God's providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Soft theological determinism is known as theological compatibilism (see figure, top right).
A rejection of theological determinism (or divine foreknowledge) is classified as theological incompatibilism also (see figure, bottom), and is relevant to a more general discussion of free will.[7]
The basic argument for theological fatalism in the case of weak theological determinism is as follows;
Assume divine foreknowledge or omniscience
Infallible foreknowledge implies destiny (it is known for certain what one will do)
Destiny eliminates alternate possibility (one cannot do otherwise)
Assert incompatibility with metaphysical libertarian free will
This argument is very often accepted as a basis for theological incompatibilism: denying either libertarian free will or divine foreknowledge (omniscience) and therefore theological determinism. On the other hand, theological compatibilism must attempt to find problems with it. The formal version of the argument rests on a number of premises, many of which have received some degree of contention. Theological compatibilist responses have included;
Deny the truth value of future contingents, as proposed for example by Aristotle (although this denies foreknowledge and therefore theological determinism).
Assert differences in non-temporal knowledge (space-time independence), an approach taken for example by Boethius,[8] Thomas Aquinas,[9] and C. S. Lewis.[10]
Deny the Principle of Alternate Possibilities: "If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely". For example, a human observer could in principle have a machine that could detect what will happen in the future, but the existence of this machine or their use of it has no influence on the outcomes of events.[11]

Theological determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Intense

The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time. It ramifies into ethics, theology, metaphysics, and psychology. The view adopted in response to it will determine a man's position in regard to the most momentous issues that present themselves to the human mind. On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are man's thoughts and volitions, his character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself has had no sort of control? This is the real import of the free-will problem.
Relation of the question to different branches of philosophy

(1) Ethically, the issue vitally affects the meaning of most of our fundamental moral terms and ideas. Responsibility, merit, duty, remorse, justice, and the like, will have a totally different significance for one who believes that all man's acts are in the last resort completely determined by agencies beyond his power, from that which these terms bear for the man who believes that each human being possessed of reason can by his own free will determine his deliberate volitions and so exercise a real command over his thoughts, his deeds, and the formation of his character.

(2) Theology studies the questions of the existence, nature and attributes of God, and His relations with man. The reconciliation of God's fore-knowledge and universal providential government of the world with the contingency of human action, as well as the harmonizing of the efficacy of supernatural grace with the free natural power of the creature, has been amongst the most arduous labours of the theological student from the days of St. Augustine down to the present time.

(3) Causality, change, movement, the beginning of existence, are notions which lie at the very heart of metaphysics. The conception of the human will as a free cause involves them all.

(4) Again, the analysis of voluntary action and the investigation of its peculiar features are the special functions of Psychology. Indeed, the nature of the process of volition and of all forms of appetitive or conative activity is a topic that has absorbed a constantly increasing space in psychological literature during the past fifty years.

(5) Finally, the rapid growth of sundry branches of modern science, such as physics, biology, sociology, and the systematization of moral statistics, has made the doctrine of free will a topic of the most keen interest in many departments of more positive knowledge.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will


----------



## Intense

*    God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will;
    man remains free, even under the action of grace;
    the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government.*
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo


----------



## Connery

pacer said:


> Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?



The fact that I can chose to believe or not believe in Christianity evinces my free will.


----------



## pacer

I understand, Connery, but if even our choice to believe or not to believe is pre-determined by God,  how can we say we have free will?


----------



## Connery

pacer said:


> I understand, Connery, but if even our choice to believe or not to believe is pre-determined by God,  how can we say we have free will?



Whose is to say that we have no choice but to believe in Christianity? There are many other religions or belief systems available to all of us, we can chose what we believe in or not at all. We can even make up our own belief system, many have done that. These are all examples of "free will".


----------



## Newby

pacer said:


> I understand, Connery, *but if even our choice *to believe or not to believe *is pre-determined by God*,  how can we say we have free will?



Where do you get that notion from?


----------



## PainefulTruth

Intense said:


> The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time.



I think it is THE prime philosophical topic.  It is the reason that God (if It exists) created the natural, rational universe.  What other purpose could it serve?  What else could God not have done without it?

An interactive God providing revelations and making Itself known to exist would automatically negate any moral free will.



> On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are man's thoughts and volitions, his character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself has had no sort of control? This is the real import of the free-will problem.



Yes, we are influenced by our genetic heritage, but any of that can be overridden by will....our free will, if that will is strong enough.  Yes, any pedophile can summon the will to override his propensities.  No, I'm not arguing that actual psychotic meltdowns don't occur.


----------



## hortysir

pacer said:


> Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?



Your eternity isn't predetermined


----------



## pacer

hortysir said:


> Your eternity isn't predetermined


In other words, the all knowing God does not know whether I am destined for heaven or hell?  I cannot grasp the concept of an eternal life...never to end...never EVER!


----------



## hortysir

pacer said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your eternity isn't predetermined
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the all knowing God does not know whether I am destined for heaven or hell?  I cannot grasp the concept of an eternal life...never to end...never EVER!
Click to expand...


You, also, can't grasp the concept of a loving father that wants you to come to Him because you want to and love Him, so......


----------



## daws101

Intense said:


> *    God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will;
> man remains free, even under the action of grace;
> the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government.*
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo


I guess the extreme bias of those publications is not a problem for you.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand, Connery, *but if even our choice *to believe or not to believe *is pre-determined by God*,  how can we say we have free will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that notion from?
Click to expand...

Theological Determinism

Theological determinism comes in two varieties. The first is based on the notion of foreknowledge: if God is an omniscient being, and if omniscience applies to the future (as well as to the past and present), then the future is known by God. But in that case, the future can only be what God knows it to be. No alternatives are possible. If God knows that it is going to rain tomorrow, then, regardless of what the weather forecast might be, it will definitely rain tomorrow. And if God knows that Jerry Falwell will decide to become an atheist sometime next week, then that is what inevitably must happen.

The second kind of theological determinism follows from the concept of divine preordination: if God is the ultimate cause behind everything, then He has preordained all that will ever occur, and once again there can be no deviation from the future's pre-set pattern. The preordination of the future is by definition a kind of determinism, so there is no arguing against it if one accepts the premise. (This is a type of causal determinism; the first kind of theological determinism is not.)

Theological determinism depends, of course, on whether or not God exists. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being, this kind of determinism is not logically compelling. And even if one accepts God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has preordained the future, or that He his omniscient, or that omniscience applies to the future. But for those with orthodox religious views things are not so simple. The notion of foreknowledge, at least, is essential to the orthodox concept of a supreme being. And yet the orthodox also wish to maintain the existence of free will, and thus reject determinism (though there are exceptions which are "orthodox" enough, e.g. Calvinism).

Now, some argue that knowledge of the future does not necessitate the future in any way: I may know that you are going to do x tomorrow, but that does not mean that you aren't freely choosing to do it. Whether or not this is right depends on how strongly we interpret what it means to have knowledge. If knowledge is supposed to imply certainty, then I cannot know that you are going to do x tomorrow unless I can somehow foretell the future. I may have very good reasons to believe that you will do x, and it may turn out that you will do x. But if it was the case that you might not have done x, then I did not really know.

One may of course use the term "knowledge" in a less strict sense in which the above would no longer apply. But when it comes to God's knowledge, as usually understood, there seems no doubt that it ought to be absolutely certain knowledge. God is after all supposed to be infallible.

Another common attempt to resolve the problem of foreknowledge is to claim that God exists outside of time. From this extra-temporal vantage point, God does not know the future beforehand. There is no "before" or "after" for God. Instead, He observes all of existence  past, present and future  as we observe the present. And as a result, His knowledge of the future is not foreknowledge, and so does not conflict with human freedom.

The "outside of time" argument is not easy to analyze because, so far as I can tell, no one knows what it really means to be outside of time. I believe the best way to tackle the argument is to consider how our situation is changed, if at all, on the supposition that God is in fact extra-temporal. God may be outside of time, but we're not. Now, for us the important thing is whether our future is something which is known. Wherever God is, if He knows our future, then from the vantage point of our present selves the future is in fact known. Our situation therefore has not changed in any way. The important thing is not how God possesses knowledge of the future, but that there is such knowledge. And if the future is in fact known, the conclusion that it is determined is unavoidable.

If the foregoing is not completely satisfactory (for as already mentioned the notion of extra-temporality is rather mysterious, so any discussion involving it is open to varying interpretations), there is another argument along the same lines. God, at least on most orthodox views, supposedly interacts with the world. But if there is such interaction with the world, then it must occur at particular points in time. And at those times, from our perspective, God certainly appears to have knowledge of our future.

Since I reject its premises, I do not accept theological determinism (the argument is valid, but not sound). Theological determinism is nevertheless important in that it reveals an inconsistency between the orthodox notions of foreknowledge and free will.
Theological Determinism


----------



## hortysir

Great copy/paste Daws



Any original thoughts lately?


----------



## daws101

hortysir said:


> Great copy/paste Daws
> 
> 
> 
> Any original thoughts lately?


so the fuck what! fact is fact....


----------



## Quantum Windbag

pacer said:


> I understand, Connery, but if even our choice to believe or not to believe is pre-determined by God,  how can we say we have free will?



I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says. 

Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for  the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes  all your choices. The entire book of Job is the story of a man who  rebelled against the destiny God laid out for him, yet idiots continue  to argue that people are not responsible for their choices because God  knows everything before it happens. 

If God knows what people will do before they do it, He had no need to  test Abraham's faith. The only way to defend that as anything other than  us not having free will is to conclude that God lied to Abraham when He  stopped him from sacrificing Isaac and told him "Now I know that you  fear God."

You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict  between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is  lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.


----------



## hortysir

daws101 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great copy/paste Daws
> 
> 
> 
> Any original thoughts lately?
> 
> 
> 
> so the fuck what! fact is fact....
Click to expand...


Actually.....interpretation is interpretation

It's just a matter of which one someone subscribes to.

Your fact does not equal my fact


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PainefulTruth said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is THE prime philosophical topic.  It is the reason that God (if It exists) created the natural, rational universe.  What other purpose could it serve?  What else could God not have done without it?
> 
> An interactive God providing revelations and making Itself known to exist would automatically negate any moral free will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are man's thoughts and volitions, his character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself has had no sort of control? This is the real import of the free-will problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we are influenced by our genetic heritage, but any of that can be overridden by will....our free will, if that will is strong enough.  Yes, any pedophile can summon the will to override his propensities.  No, I'm not arguing that actual psychotic meltdowns don't occur.
Click to expand...


The very existence of free will proves that God is impossible?

I have to say that is, flat out, the stupidest argument I have ever come across, which probably explains why you are the only person in the universe stupid enough to make it.


----------



## Care4all

pacer said:


> Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?


Well, I believe God is omniscient and knows all, He is the Alpha and the Omega...therefore He knows the future, so He knows all, so He knows whose names will be in the book of Life, when all said and done, before we even think the first thing is done....

As far as free will, it is evident that God gave us free will from the very beginning of creating Adam and Eve...if he hadn't created Adam and Eve with free will, there would have been no need for God to warn the two about not eating from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and Adam and Eve wouldn't have eaten from that tree without free will....no?  So it appears to me, and without much doubt, that God did give man free will.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand, Connery, *but if even our choice *to believe or not to believe *is pre-determined by God*,  how can we say we have free will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that notion from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theological Determinism
> 
> Theological determinism comes in two varieties. The first is based on the notion of foreknowledge: if God is an omniscient being, and if omniscience applies to the future (as well as to the past and present), then the future is known by God. But in that case, the future can only be what God knows it to be. No alternatives are possible. If God knows that it is going to rain tomorrow, then, regardless of what the weather forecast might be, it will definitely rain tomorrow. And if God knows that Jerry Falwell will decide to become an atheist sometime next week, then that is what inevitably must happen.
> 
> The second kind of theological determinism follows from the concept of divine preordination: if God is the ultimate cause behind everything, then He has preordained all that will ever occur, and once again there can be no deviation from the future's pre-set pattern. The preordination of the future is by definition a kind of determinism, so there is no arguing against it if one accepts the premise. (This is a type of causal determinism; the first kind of theological determinism is not.)
> 
> Theological determinism depends, of course, on whether or not God exists. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being, this kind of determinism is not logically compelling. And even if one accepts God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has preordained the future, or that He his omniscient, or that omniscience applies to the future. But for those with orthodox religious views things are not so simple. The notion of foreknowledge, at least, is essential to the orthodox concept of a supreme being. And yet the orthodox also wish to maintain the existence of free will, and thus reject determinism (though there are exceptions which are "orthodox" enough, e.g. Calvinism).
> 
> Now, some argue that knowledge of the future does not necessitate the future in any way: I may know that you are going to do x tomorrow, but that does not mean that you aren't freely choosing to do it. Whether or not this is right depends on how strongly we interpret what it means to have knowledge. If knowledge is supposed to imply certainty, then I cannot know that you are going to do x tomorrow unless I can somehow foretell the future. I may have very good reasons to believe that you will do x, and it may turn out that you will do x. But if it was the case that you might not have done x, then I did not really know.
> 
> One may of course use the term "knowledge" in a less strict sense in which the above would no longer apply. But when it comes to God's knowledge, as usually understood, there seems no doubt that it ought to be absolutely certain knowledge. God is after all supposed to be infallible.
> 
> Another common attempt to resolve the problem of foreknowledge is to claim that God exists outside of time. From this extra-temporal vantage point, God does not know the future beforehand. There is no "before" or "after" for God. Instead, He observes all of existence  past, present and future  as we observe the present. And as a result, His knowledge of the future is not foreknowledge, and so does not conflict with human freedom.
> 
> The "outside of time" argument is not easy to analyze because, so far as I can tell, no one knows what it really means to be outside of time. I believe the best way to tackle the argument is to consider how our situation is changed, if at all, on the supposition that God is in fact extra-temporal. God may be outside of time, but we're not. Now, for us the important thing is whether our future is something which is known. Wherever God is, if He knows our future, then from the vantage point of our present selves the future is in fact known. Our situation therefore has not changed in any way. The important thing is not how God possesses knowledge of the future, but that there is such knowledge. And if the future is in fact known, the conclusion that it is determined is unavoidable.
> 
> If the foregoing is not completely satisfactory (for as already mentioned the notion of extra-temporality is rather mysterious, so any discussion involving it is open to varying interpretations), there is another argument along the same lines. God, at least on most orthodox views, supposedly interacts with the world. But if there is such interaction with the world, then it must occur at particular points in time. And at those times, from our perspective, God certainly appears to have knowledge of our future.
> 
> Since I reject its premises, I do not accept theological determinism (the argument is valid, but not sound). Theological determinism is nevertheless important in that it reveals an inconsistency between the orthodox notions of foreknowledge and free will.
> Theological Determinism
Click to expand...


Which,as I told you before, is complete bunk, which is why the only people that believe in it are willing to blow themselves up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great copy/paste Daws
> 
> 
> 
> Any original thoughts lately?
> 
> 
> 
> so the fuck what! fact is fact....
Click to expand...


The fact is you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## skye

My personal opinion is that we all have free will,*  within certain parameters,   *here on earth. We can   make choices ... there are lessons to learn and it's up to us... otherwise we would be angels and be perfect.


Then again... what do I know


----------



## daws101

hortysir said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great copy/paste Daws
> 
> 
> 
> Any original thoughts lately?
> 
> 
> 
> so the fuck what! fact is fact....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually.....interpretation is interpretation
> 
> It's just a matter of which one someone subscribes to.
> 
> Your fact does not equal my fact
Click to expand...

mine supersedes yours..


----------



## hortysir

skye said:


> My personal opinion is that we all have free will,*  within certain parameters,   *here on earth. We can   make choices ... there are lessons to learn and it's up to us... otherwise we would be angels and be perfect.
> 
> 
> Then again... what do I know



And at other times it IS fun to watch "coincidences", where just the right people show up at just the right time


----------



## skye

hortysir said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion is that we all have free will,*  within certain parameters,   *here on earth. We can   make choices ... there are lessons to learn and it's up to us... otherwise we would be angels and be perfect.
> 
> 
> Then again... what do I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at other times it IS fun to watch "coincidences", where just the right people show up at just the right time
Click to expand...



What do you mean?


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that notion from?
> 
> 
> 
> Theological Determinism
> 
> Theological determinism comes in two varieties. The first is based on the notion of foreknowledge: if God is an omniscient being, and if omniscience applies to the future (as well as to the past and present), then the future is known by God. But in that case, the future can only be what God knows it to be. No alternatives are possible. If God knows that it is going to rain tomorrow, then, regardless of what the weather forecast might be, it will definitely rain tomorrow. And if God knows that Jerry Falwell will decide to become an atheist sometime next week, then that is what inevitably must happen.
> 
> The second kind of theological determinism follows from the concept of divine preordination: if God is the ultimate cause behind everything, then He has preordained all that will ever occur, and once again there can be no deviation from the future's pre-set pattern. The preordination of the future is by definition a kind of determinism, so there is no arguing against it if one accepts the premise. (This is a type of causal determinism; the first kind of theological determinism is not.)
> 
> Theological determinism depends, of course, on whether or not God exists. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being, this kind of determinism is not logically compelling. And even if one accepts God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has preordained the future, or that He his omniscient, or that omniscience applies to the future. But for those with orthodox religious views things are not so simple. The notion of foreknowledge, at least, is essential to the orthodox concept of a supreme being. And yet the orthodox also wish to maintain the existence of free will, and thus reject determinism (though there are exceptions which are "orthodox" enough, e.g. Calvinism).
> 
> Now, some argue that knowledge of the future does not necessitate the future in any way: I may know that you are going to do x tomorrow, but that does not mean that you aren't freely choosing to do it. Whether or not this is right depends on how strongly we interpret what it means to have knowledge. If knowledge is supposed to imply certainty, then I cannot know that you are going to do x tomorrow unless I can somehow foretell the future. I may have very good reasons to believe that you will do x, and it may turn out that you will do x. But if it was the case that you might not have done x, then I did not really know.
> 
> One may of course use the term "knowledge" in a less strict sense in which the above would no longer apply. But when it comes to God's knowledge, as usually understood, there seems no doubt that it ought to be absolutely certain knowledge. God is after all supposed to be infallible.
> 
> Another common attempt to resolve the problem of foreknowledge is to claim that God exists outside of time. From this extra-temporal vantage point, God does not know the future beforehand. There is no "before" or "after" for God. Instead, He observes all of existence &#8212; past, present and future &#8212; as we observe the present. And as a result, His knowledge of the future is not foreknowledge, and so does not conflict with human freedom.
> 
> The "outside of time" argument is not easy to analyze because, so far as I can tell, no one knows what it really means to be outside of time. I believe the best way to tackle the argument is to consider how our situation is changed, if at all, on the supposition that God is in fact extra-temporal. God may be outside of time, but we're not. Now, for us the important thing is whether our future is something which is known. Wherever God is, if He knows our future, then from the vantage point of our present selves the future is in fact known. Our situation therefore has not changed in any way. The important thing is not how God possesses knowledge of the future, but that there is such knowledge. And if the future is in fact known, the conclusion that it is determined is unavoidable.
> 
> If the foregoing is not completely satisfactory (for as already mentioned the notion of extra-temporality is rather mysterious, so any discussion involving it is open to varying interpretations), there is another argument along the same lines. God, at least on most orthodox views, supposedly interacts with the world. But if there is such interaction with the world, then it must occur at particular points in time. And at those times, from our perspective, God certainly appears to have knowledge of our future.
> 
> Since I reject its premises, I do not accept theological determinism (the argument is valid, but not sound). Theological determinism is nevertheless important in that it reveals an inconsistency between the orthodox notions of foreknowledge and free will.
> Theological Determinism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which,as I told you before, is complete bunk, which is why the only people that believe in it are willing to blow themselves up.
Click to expand...

and as I told you before..what you believe is based on a false premise..also given the right motivation  you would be willing to blow yourself up, so your  point is  meaningless.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great copy/paste Daws
> 
> 
> 
> Any original thoughts lately?
> 
> 
> 
> so the fuck what! fact is fact....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

once again, you only wish I didn't .


----------



## Quantum Windbag

skye said:


> My personal opinion is that we all have free will,*  within certain parameters,   *here on earth. We can   make choices ... there are lessons to learn and it's up to us... otherwise we would be angels and be perfect.
> 
> 
> Then again... what do I know



I can't decide to fly without artificial aid, or breathe water, but those aren't really limits on my free will.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theological Determinism
> 
> Theological determinism comes in two varieties. The first is based on the notion of foreknowledge: if God is an omniscient being, and if omniscience applies to the future (as well as to the past and present), then the future is known by God. But in that case, the future can only be what God knows it to be. No alternatives are possible. If God knows that it is going to rain tomorrow, then, regardless of what the weather forecast might be, it will definitely rain tomorrow. And if God knows that Jerry Falwell will decide to become an atheist sometime next week, then that is what inevitably must happen.
> 
> The second kind of theological determinism follows from the concept of divine preordination: if God is the ultimate cause behind everything, then He has preordained all that will ever occur, and once again there can be no deviation from the future's pre-set pattern. The preordination of the future is by definition a kind of determinism, so there is no arguing against it if one accepts the premise. (This is a type of causal determinism; the first kind of theological determinism is not.)
> 
> Theological determinism depends, of course, on whether or not God exists. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being, this kind of determinism is not logically compelling. And even if one accepts God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has preordained the future, or that He his omniscient, or that omniscience applies to the future. But for those with orthodox religious views things are not so simple. The notion of foreknowledge, at least, is essential to the orthodox concept of a supreme being. And yet the orthodox also wish to maintain the existence of free will, and thus reject determinism (though there are exceptions which are "orthodox" enough, e.g. Calvinism).
> 
> Now, some argue that knowledge of the future does not necessitate the future in any way: I may know that you are going to do x tomorrow, but that does not mean that you aren't freely choosing to do it. Whether or not this is right depends on how strongly we interpret what it means to have knowledge. If knowledge is supposed to imply certainty, then I cannot know that you are going to do x tomorrow unless I can somehow foretell the future. I may have very good reasons to believe that you will do x, and it may turn out that you will do x. But if it was the case that you might not have done x, then I did not really know.
> 
> One may of course use the term "knowledge" in a less strict sense in which the above would no longer apply. But when it comes to God's knowledge, as usually understood, there seems no doubt that it ought to be absolutely certain knowledge. God is after all supposed to be infallible.
> 
> Another common attempt to resolve the problem of foreknowledge is to claim that God exists outside of time. From this extra-temporal vantage point, God does not know the future beforehand. There is no "before" or "after" for God. Instead, He observes all of existence  past, present and future  as we observe the present. And as a result, His knowledge of the future is not foreknowledge, and so does not conflict with human freedom.
> 
> The "outside of time" argument is not easy to analyze because, so far as I can tell, no one knows what it really means to be outside of time. I believe the best way to tackle the argument is to consider how our situation is changed, if at all, on the supposition that God is in fact extra-temporal. God may be outside of time, but we're not. Now, for us the important thing is whether our future is something which is known. Wherever God is, if He knows our future, then from the vantage point of our present selves the future is in fact known. Our situation therefore has not changed in any way. The important thing is not how God possesses knowledge of the future, but that there is such knowledge. And if the future is in fact known, the conclusion that it is determined is unavoidable.
> 
> If the foregoing is not completely satisfactory (for as already mentioned the notion of extra-temporality is rather mysterious, so any discussion involving it is open to varying interpretations), there is another argument along the same lines. God, at least on most orthodox views, supposedly interacts with the world. But if there is such interaction with the world, then it must occur at particular points in time. And at those times, from our perspective, God certainly appears to have knowledge of our future.
> 
> Since I reject its premises, I do not accept theological determinism (the argument is valid, but not sound). Theological determinism is nevertheless important in that it reveals an inconsistency between the orthodox notions of foreknowledge and free will.
> Theological Determinism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which,as I told you before, is complete bunk, which is why the only people that believe in it are willing to blow themselves up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and as I told you before..what you believe is based on a false premise..also given the right motivation  you would be willing to blow yourself up, so your  point is  meaningless.
Click to expand...


I bet you couldn't come up with a motivation for me to blow myself up, which proves that all you have is empty words and no idea how to express your ideas.


----------



## hortysir

skye said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion is that we all have free will,*  within certain parameters,   *here on earth. We can   make choices ... there are lessons to learn and it's up to us... otherwise we would be angels and be perfect.
> 
> 
> Then again... what do I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at other times it IS fun to watch "coincidences", where just the right people show up at just the right time
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...


You've never seen eerie coincidences like a car careening into a canal just as an experienced diver just happened to be coming down that same deserted stretch of road? 
Or some such thing.

As a person of faith, I'm always in awe of (what I see as) Him putting people where they're needed at just the right time


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion is that we all have free will,*  within certain parameters,   *here on earth. We can   make choices ... there are lessons to learn and it's up to us... otherwise we would be angels and be perfect.
> 
> 
> Then again... what do I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't decide to fly without artificial aid, or breathe water, but those aren't really limits on my free will.
Click to expand...

at one time you did breath liquid...


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which,as I told you before, is complete bunk, which is why the only people that believe in it are willing to blow themselves up.
> 
> 
> 
> and as I told you before..what you believe is based on a false premise..also given the right motivation  you would be willing to blow yourself up, so your  point is  meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you couldn't come up with a motivation for me to blow myself up, which proves that all you have is empty words and no idea how to express your ideas.
Click to expand...

whatever you say dear..
try this one on...pretend you have a family and the only possible way to save them is blow yourself up.
it's a question of what's  more important to you your  life or the lives of your family ..
one life or several?
selfishness or unselfishness ?


----------



## skye

hortysir said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> And at other times it IS fun to watch "coincidences", where just the right people show up at just the right time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never seen eerie coincidences like a car careening into a canal just as an experienced diver just happened to be coming down that same deserted stretch of road?
> Or some such thing.
> 
> As a person of faith, I'm always in awe of (what I see as) Him putting people where they're needed at just the right time
Click to expand...



Yes,  I believe  in that too!


----------



## daws101

hortysir said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> And at other times it IS fun to watch "coincidences", where just the right people show up at just the right time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never seen eerie coincidences like a car careening into a canal just as an experienced diver just happened to be coming down that same deserted stretch of road?
> Or some such thing.
> 
> As a person of faith, I'm always in awe of (what I see as) Him putting people where they're needed at just the right time
Click to expand...

then it would not be a coincidence...
because "god" planned that event to occur just the way it did..
fine proof of no free will or accidental  good timing.. you choose.


----------



## skye

Quantum Windbag said:


> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion is that we all have free will,*  within certain parameters,   *here on earth. We can   make choices ... there are lessons to learn and it's up to us... otherwise we would be angels and be perfect.
> 
> 
> Then again... what do I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't decide to fly without artificial aid, or breathe water, but those aren't really limits on my free will.
Click to expand...



Don't be silly.... when I say  that we all have free will within "certain parameters"  I mean things like go back in time and space or live forever .... or fly without  the  need of any mechanical help...etc...

Within certain parameters we can live our lives and make our choices  here on earth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skye said:
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion is that we all have free will,*  within certain parameters,   *here on earth. We can   make choices ... there are lessons to learn and it's up to us... otherwise we would be angels and be perfect.
> 
> 
> Then again... what do I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't decide to fly without artificial aid, or breathe water, but those aren't really limits on my free will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> at one time you did breath liquid...
Click to expand...


Despite your lack of understanding of fetal development, babies do not breathe.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and as I told you before..what you believe is based on a false premise..also given the right motivation  you would be willing to blow yourself up, so your  point is  meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you couldn't come up with a motivation for me to blow myself up, which proves that all you have is empty words and no idea how to express your ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whatever you say dear..
> try this one on...pretend you have a family and the only possible way to save them is blow yourself up.
> it's a question of what's  more important to you your  life or the lives of your family ..
> one life or several?
> selfishness or unselfishness ?
Click to expand...



What makes you think I would be willing to kill hypothetical innocent people to save my hypothetical family?


----------



## pacer

During the later stages of gestation, the fetus may "practice" breathing by inhaling and exhaling amniotic fluid. The fetal lungs do not process the amniotic fluid, the way fully formed lungs process air, but experts believe this "breathing" is important to fetal lung development. The fetus gets all of its oxygen and nutrients through the placenta and umbilical cord---a process called fetal circulation.
Want to lose baby weight? Learn more 

Read more: How Do Babies Breathe In The Womb? | LIVESTRONG.COM


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't decide to fly without artificial aid, or breathe water, but those aren't really limits on my free will.
> 
> 
> 
> at one time you did breath liquid...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite your lack of understanding of fetal development, babies do not breathe.
Click to expand...

sorry chief they do..it's not breathing as such, but it's a working of those muscle groups . the lung expand and contract and expel amniotic fluid.  
if they did not do this they would not be able to breath right after birth. so there!


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you couldn't come up with a motivation for me to blow myself up, which proves that all you have is empty words and no idea how to express your ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> whatever you say dear..
> try this one on...pretend you have a family and the only possible way to save them is blow yourself up.
> it's a question of what's  more important to you your  life or the lives of your family ..
> one life or several?
> selfishness or unselfishness ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I would be willing to kill hypothetical innocent people to save my hypothetical family?
Click to expand...

 where did I say kill innocent people ... nice attempt at a dodge..
so your family is not important enough to kill and die for?


----------



## Intense

daws101 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> *    God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will;
> man remains free, even under the action of grace;
> the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government.*
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the extreme bias of those publications is not a problem for you.
Click to expand...


Honestly, I'd rate them a 100%, and you a 1%. New Advent is pretty much the comprehensive Catholic Church perspective on pretty much any topic, with encyclopedic precision, detail, and follow up. You want to argue with that combined knowledge, fine, I have no problem with that, nor you making an ass out of yourself by trying to discredit the source. You have free will here, as you exhibit. I'd be searching things out more and asking questions, you know, opening some doors and windows, trying to gain in perspective from shared knowledge, that's be, though. There is a perspective, that in matters of salvation, for each of us, the worst battle is internal, not external. You need to search out your own conscience there, and maybe learn to feed it, rather than deny it, or try to enslave it. Just a thought.


----------



## daws101

Intense said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> *    God is absolute Master, by His grace, of all the determinations of the will;
> man remains free, even under the action of grace;
> the reconciliation of these two truths rests on the manner of the Divine government.*
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the extreme bias of those publications is not a problem for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'd rate them a 100%, and you a 1%. New Advent is pretty much the comprehensive Catholic Church perspective on pretty much any topic, with encyclopedic precision, detail, and follow up. You want to argue with that combined knowledge, fine, I have no problem with that, nor you making an ass out of yourself by trying to discredit the source. You have free will here, as you exhibit. I'd be searching things out more and asking questions, you know, opening some doors and windows, trying to gain in perspective from shared knowledge, that's be, though. There is a perspective, that in matters of salvation, for each of us, the worst battle is internal, not external. You need to search out your own conscience there, and maybe learn to feed it, rather than deny it, or try to enslave it. Just a thought.
Click to expand...

fine bit of PR doesn't answer the question though.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> at one time you did breath liquid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite your lack of understanding of fetal development, babies do not breathe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry chief they do..it's not breathing as such, but it's a working of those muscle groups . the lung expand and contract and expel amniotic fluid.
> if they did not do this they would not be able to breath right after birth. so there!
Click to expand...


If it's not breathing 'per se' it ain't breathing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> whatever you say dear..
> try this one on...pretend you have a family and the only possible way to save them is blow yourself up.
> it's a question of what's  more important to you your  life or the lives of your family ..
> one life or several?
> selfishness or unselfishness ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I would be willing to kill hypothetical innocent people to save my hypothetical family?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> where did I say kill innocent people ... nice attempt at a dodge..
> so your family is not important enough to kill and die for?
Click to expand...


Now you want to make a bomb that only kills one person?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the extreme bias of those publications is not a problem for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'd rate them a 100%, and you a 1%. New Advent is pretty much the comprehensive Catholic Church perspective on pretty much any topic, with encyclopedic precision, detail, and follow up. You want to argue with that combined knowledge, fine, I have no problem with that, nor you making an ass out of yourself by trying to discredit the source. You have free will here, as you exhibit. I'd be searching things out more and asking questions, you know, opening some doors and windows, trying to gain in perspective from shared knowledge, that's be, though. There is a perspective, that in matters of salvation, for each of us, the worst battle is internal, not external. You need to search out your own conscience there, and maybe learn to feed it, rather than deny it, or try to enslave it. Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fine bit of PR doesn't answer the question though.
Click to expand...


Are they biased because they disagree with your total lack of expertise on the subject?


----------



## Daktoria

As far as Western religion's interpretation of free will and fate is concerned:

Universal reconciliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total depravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholics believe in the first.

Protestants believe in the second's various forms of election, but ultimately, they all depend on original sin being overcome from the predestination of grace and how this is revealed from "good works".  It stems from Martin Luther's reintegration of the Hebrew Bible into the Old Testament, so it stands to merit that Jews believe in the same thing which they confirm in believing they're the chosen people as well as "bashert".  Muslims also believe in "qadar".

The big problem with discussing fate is it's circular.  It begs the question as to how people would know fate exists in the first place.  Those who claim fate might as well not be fated, but are just claiming to be so.  Even when they say they "feel it", that doesn't mean their feelings are reliable.  They might as well just be spoiled brats or deluded nutcases who are brutally asserting their opinion as valuable.

On the other hand, the problem with discussing free will is opponents can default proponents into enduring them, and thereby say it's fate that they endure opposition.  You see this especially when fatalists claim that free will advocates are simply stating their opinion, and manipulate context out of syntax while calling free will advocates dictators in their interpretation of words.  Eventually, free will advocates claim their position is just blatantly obvious, and fatalists take those words to justify their own position as well.

Another thing with fate and free will is the "structure versus agency" debate.  Some people believe that fate refers to an internal lack of agency to behave oneself.  Others believe that fate refers to an external structure that can't be overcome.

There's also the randomness versus self-determination debate.  Some people believe that free will refers to an external unpredictability.  Other people believe that free will refers to an internal ability to determine oneself.

Anyway, a lot of the debate gets predisposed according to the direction that people approach it in "wanting" it to go.

That very "wanting" could be free willing in people thinking about which way to debate, or it could be fated in being emotionally overloaded toward a way.

Likewise, people approach the debate to represent what they want.  Heck, you could have emotionally overloaded people wanting "free will" and thoughtful people wanting "fate" for the sake of their own self-interests in believing that those beliefs will encourage society to go in an interesting direction.

I believe in free will because it is who I am, but most people around me believe in fate because they enjoy getting me to do what they want without consent.

On the side, I guess that explains why I believe most people are stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> As far as Western religion's interpretation of free will and fate is concerned:
> 
> Universal reconciliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Total depravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Catholics believe in the first.
> 
> Protestants believe in the second's various forms of election, but ultimately, they all depend on original sin being overcome from the predestination of grace and how this is revealed from "good works".  It stems from Martin Luther's reintegration of the Hebrew Bible into the Old Testament, so it stands to merit that Jews believe in the same thing which they confirm in believing they're the chosen people as well as "bashert".  Muslims also believe in "qadar".
> 
> The big problem with discussing fate is it's circular.  It begs the question as to how people would know fate exists in the first place.  Those who claim fate might as well not be fated, but are just claiming to be so.  Even when they say they "feel it", that doesn't mean their feelings are reliable.  They might as well just be spoiled brats or deluded nutcases who are brutally asserting their opinion as valuable.
> 
> On the other hand, the problem with discussing free will is opponents can default proponents into enduring them, and thereby say it's fate that they endure opposition.  You see this especially when fatalists claim that free will advocates are simply stating their opinion, and manipulate context out of syntax while calling free will advocates dictators in their interpretation of words.  Eventually, free will advocates claim their position is just blatantly obvious, and fatalists take those words to justify their own position as well.
> 
> Another thing with fate and free will is the "structure versus agency" debate.  Some people believe that fate refers to an internal lack of agency to behave oneself.  Others believe that fate refers to an external structure that can't be overcome.
> 
> There's also the randomness versus self-determination debate.  Some people believe that free will refers to an external unpredictability.  Other people believe that free will refers to an internal ability to determine oneself.
> 
> Anyway, a lot of the debate gets predisposed according to the direction that people approach it in "wanting" it to go.
> 
> That very "wanting" could be free willing in people thinking about which way to debate, or it could be fated in being emotionally overloaded toward a way.
> 
> Likewise, people approach the debate to represent what they want.  Heck, you could have emotionally overloaded people wanting "free will" and thoughtful people wanting "fate" for the sake of their own self-interests in believing that those beliefs will encourage society to go in an interesting direction.
> 
> I believe in free will because it is who I am, but most people around me believe in fate because they enjoy getting me to do what they want without consent.
> 
> On the side, I guess that explains why I believe most people are stupid.



Another non expert in theology oversimplifies something he doesn't understand.


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand, Connery, *but if even our choice *to believe or not to believe *is pre-determined by God*,  how can we say we have free will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that notion from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Theological Determinism
> 
> Theological determinism comes in two varieties. The first is based on the notion of foreknowledge: if God is an omniscient being, and if omniscience applies to the future (as well as to the past and present), then the future is known by God. But in that case, the future can only be what God knows it to be. No alternatives are possible. If God knows that it is going to rain tomorrow, then, regardless of what the weather forecast might be, it will definitely rain tomorrow. And if God knows that Jerry Falwell will decide to become an atheist sometime next week, then that is what inevitably must happen.
> 
> The second kind of theological determinism follows from the concept of divine preordination: if God is the ultimate cause behind everything, then He has preordained all that will ever occur, and once again there can be no deviation from the future's pre-set pattern. The preordination of the future is by definition a kind of determinism, so there is no arguing against it if one accepts the premise. (This is a type of causal determinism; the first kind of theological determinism is not.)
> 
> Theological determinism depends, of course, on whether or not God exists. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being, this kind of determinism is not logically compelling. And even if one accepts God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has preordained the future, or that He his omniscient, or that omniscience applies to the future. But for those with orthodox religious views things are not so simple. The notion of foreknowledge, at least, is essential to the orthodox concept of a supreme being. And yet the orthodox also wish to maintain the existence of free will, and thus reject determinism (though there are exceptions which are "orthodox" enough, e.g. Calvinism).
> 
> Now, some argue that knowledge of the future does not necessitate the future in any way: I may know that you are going to do x tomorrow, but that does not mean that you aren't freely choosing to do it. Whether or not this is right depends on how strongly we interpret what it means to have knowledge. If knowledge is supposed to imply certainty, then I cannot know that you are going to do x tomorrow unless I can somehow foretell the future. I may have very good reasons to believe that you will do x, and it may turn out that you will do x. But if it was the case that you might not have done x, then I did not really know.
> 
> One may of course use the term "knowledge" in a less strict sense in which the above would no longer apply. But when it comes to God's knowledge, as usually understood, there seems no doubt that it ought to be absolutely certain knowledge. God is after all supposed to be infallible.
> 
> Another common attempt to resolve the problem of foreknowledge is to claim that God exists outside of time. From this extra-temporal vantage point, God does not know the future beforehand. There is no "before" or "after" for God. Instead, He observes all of existence  past, present and future  as we observe the present. And as a result, His knowledge of the future is not foreknowledge, and so does not conflict with human freedom.
> 
> The "outside of time" argument is not easy to analyze because, so far as I can tell, no one knows what it really means to be outside of time. I believe the best way to tackle the argument is to consider how our situation is changed, if at all, on the supposition that God is in fact extra-temporal. God may be outside of time, but we're not. Now, for us the important thing is whether our future is something which is known. Wherever God is, if He knows our future, then from the vantage point of our present selves the future is in fact known. Our situation therefore has not changed in any way. The important thing is not how God possesses knowledge of the future, but that there is such knowledge. And if the future is in fact known, the conclusion that it is determined is unavoidable.
> 
> If the foregoing is not completely satisfactory (for as already mentioned the notion of extra-temporality is rather mysterious, so any discussion involving it is open to varying interpretations), there is another argument along the same lines. God, at least on most orthodox views, supposedly interacts with the world. But if there is such interaction with the world, then it must occur at particular points in time. And at those times, from our perspective, God certainly appears to have knowledge of our future.
> 
> Since I reject its premises, I do not accept theological determinism (the argument is valid, but not sound). Theological determinism is nevertheless important in that it reveals an inconsistency between the orthodox notions of foreknowledge and free will.
> Theological Determinism
Click to expand...


I was speaking from a theological standpoint, not the opinion of some 'philsospher' or professor who no doubt hasn't any belief in God.  I wouldn't expect you to be able to make the argument from a biblical standpoint, or you can google search and try again if you wish.


----------



## Newby

Quantum Windbag said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand, Connery, but if even our choice to believe or not to believe is pre-determined by God,  how can we say we have free will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.*
> 
> Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for  the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes  all your choices. The entire book of Job is the story of a man who  rebelled against the destiny God laid out for him, yet idiots continue  to argue that people are not responsible for their choices because God  knows everything before it happens.
> 
> If God knows what people will do before they do it, He had no need to  test Abraham's faith. The only way to defend that as anything other than  us not having free will is to conclude that God lied to Abraham when He  stopped him from sacrificing Isaac and told him "Now I know that you  fear God."
> 
> You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict  between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is  lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.
Click to expand...


Exactly!  Great post..


----------



## Daktoria

Quantum Windbag said:


> Another non expert in theology oversimplifies something he doesn't understand.



Do you want to construct consensus instead of just obstructively saying, "No"?

For all intents and purposes, what I said could have been right and you're just being contrarian.


----------



## PainefulTruth

Quantum Windbag said:


> *I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.*
> 
> Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for  the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes  all your choices.......
> 
> You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict  between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is  lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.



The issue is not that God makes our choices, it's that they are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology.  Only those whose names are in the Book of Life, written from the foundation of the World, will be saved.   If our choices are predetermined, how can we have free will?

The theology doesn't work.  Either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact or even let us become aware of Itself, which would inevitably influence our choices.

What purpose does the universe serve but to provide us with the holy gift of unfettered free will?  God could do anything else without using the universe as a smoke screen.


----------



## Newby

PainefulTruth said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.*
> 
> Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for  the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes  all your choices.......
> 
> You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict  between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is  lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not that God makes our choices, it's that they *are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology*.  Only those whose names are in the Book of Life, written from the foundation of the World, will be saved.   If our choices are predetermined, how can we have free will?
> 
> The theology doesn't work.  Either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact or even let us become aware of Itself, which would inevitably influence our choices.
> 
> What purpose does the universe serve but to provide us with the holy gift of unfettered free will?  God could do anything else without using the universe as a smoke screen.
Click to expand...


Can you identify specifically which theology you're referring to?


----------



## PainefulTruth

Newby said:


> Can you identify specifically which theology you're referring to?



Theology,  1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world.

Specific issues are:  moral free will; God's possible existence and interaction/non-interaction in the universe and human affairs and the effect that might have on our free will; the Book of Life written from the foundation of the world (universe?) and its implications for free will.  The issue of free will is about as theological as it gets.  It deals with the source of our moral code (God or our self-awareness), whether God exists, and if so, whether It's interactive or laissez faire.


----------



## Newby

PainefulTruth said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you identify specifically which theology you're referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Theology,  1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially *: the study of God and of God's relation to the world.
> 
> Specific issues are:  moral free will; God's possible existence and interaction/non-interaction in the universe and human affairs and the effect that might have on our free will; the Book of Life written from the foundation of the world (universe?) and its implications for free will.  The issue of free will is about as theological as it gets.  It deals with the source of our moral code (God or our self-awareness), whether God exists, and if so, whether It's interactive or laissez faire.
Click to expand...


Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another non expert in theology oversimplifies something he doesn't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to construct consensus instead of just obstructively saying, "No"?
> 
> For all intents and purposes, what I said could have been right and you're just being contrarian.
Click to expand...


Consensus is for Pharisees, not for honest people.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PainefulTruth said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.*
> 
> Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for  the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes  all your choices.......
> 
> You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict  between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is  lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not that God makes our choices, it's that they are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology.  Only those whose names are in the Book of Life, written from the foundation of the World, will be saved.   If our choices are predetermined, how can we have free will?
> 
> The theology doesn't work.  Either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact or even let us become aware of Itself, which would inevitably influence our choices.
> 
> What purpose does the universe serve but to provide us with the holy gift of unfettered free will?  God could do anything else without using the universe as a smoke screen.
Click to expand...


Judeo-Christian theology does not teach determinism. 

Your logic only works if you can't read, which leaves me to believe you haven't actually read, which is why I will address the rest of my post to people like you.

For the people that won't read, the Book of Life is the list of people that are judged after the Tribulation. since the Rapture occurs before that happens that means that people whose names are written in that book are saved after the Rapture. That does not in any way prove that determinism is true unless you ignore everything else in the Bible.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite your lack of understanding of fetal development, babies do not breathe.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry chief they do..it's not breathing as such, but it's a working of those muscle groups . the lung expand and contract and expel amniotic fluid.
> if they did not do this they would not be able to breath right after birth. so there!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's not breathing 'per se' it ain't breathing.
Click to expand...

yes it it is, the only difference is little or no air is transferred...you could say it's practice.
then again I get the impression you're a black and white thinker.
for you it's either this or that.
when in reality it's both or neither.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I would be willing to kill hypothetical innocent people to save my hypothetical family?
> 
> 
> 
> where did I say kill innocent people ... nice attempt at a dodge..
> so your family is not important enough to kill and die for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you want to make a bomb that only kills one person?
Click to expand...

never said that either, still dodging...


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'd rate them a 100%, and you a 1%. New Advent is pretty much the comprehensive Catholic Church perspective on pretty much any topic, with encyclopedic precision, detail, and follow up. You want to argue with that combined knowledge, fine, I have no problem with that, nor you making an ass out of yourself by trying to discredit the source. You have free will here, as you exhibit. I'd be searching things out more and asking questions, you know, opening some doors and windows, trying to gain in perspective from shared knowledge, that's be, though. There is a perspective, that in matters of salvation, for each of us, the worst battle is internal, not external. You need to search out your own conscience there, and maybe learn to feed it, rather than deny it, or try to enslave it. Just a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> fine bit of PR doesn't answer the question though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they biased because they disagree with your total lack of expertise on the subject?
Click to expand...

 more false assumptions...who is they?
I was talking about this publication New Advent..which by definition is bias as anything published by any group is bias...
as to the other nonsense I never said I was an expert... you answers  make it clear that I must know enough about the subject to make you go batshit attempting to keep me from asking question about it or having an opinion on it.


----------



## theword

Quantum Windbag said:


> PainefulTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.*
> 
> Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for  the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes  all your choices.......
> 
> You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict  between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is  lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not that God makes our choices, it's that they are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology.  Only those whose names are in the Book of Life, written from the foundation of the World, will be saved.   If our choices are predetermined, how can we have free will?
> 
> The theology doesn't work.  Either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact or even let us become aware of Itself, which would inevitably influence our choices.
> 
> What purpose does the universe serve but to provide us with the holy gift of unfettered free will?  God could do anything else without using the universe as a smoke screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judeo-Christian theology does not teach determinism.
> 
> Your logic only works if you can't read, which leaves me to believe you haven't actually read, which is why I will address the rest of my post to people like you.
> 
> For the people that won't read, the Book of Life is the list of people that are judged after the Tribulation. since the Rapture occurs before that happens that means that people whose names are written in that book are saved after the Rapture. That does not in any way prove that determinism is true unless you ignore everything else in the Bible.
Click to expand...


The "Book of Life" is the same thing as Christ, Son of God, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Breath of Life, Life, Eternal Life, Light, Zion, Jacob, Holy Spirit, Word of God, which all mean the invisible creation of our invisible Creator ( Father, God, Savior, King, Master Programmer, etc. ).


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get that notion from?
> 
> 
> 
> Theological Determinism
> 
> Theological determinism comes in two varieties. The first is based on the notion of foreknowledge: if God is an omniscient being, and if omniscience applies to the future (as well as to the past and present), then the future is known by God. But in that case, the future can only be what God knows it to be. No alternatives are possible. If God knows that it is going to rain tomorrow, then, regardless of what the weather forecast might be, it will definitely rain tomorrow. And if God knows that Jerry Falwell will decide to become an atheist sometime next week, then that is what inevitably must happen.
> 
> The second kind of theological determinism follows from the concept of divine preordination: if God is the ultimate cause behind everything, then He has preordained all that will ever occur, and once again there can be no deviation from the future's pre-set pattern. The preordination of the future is by definition a kind of determinism, so there is no arguing against it if one accepts the premise. (This is a type of causal determinism; the first kind of theological determinism is not.)
> 
> Theological determinism depends, of course, on whether or not God exists. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being, this kind of determinism is not logically compelling. And even if one accepts God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has preordained the future, or that He his omniscient, or that omniscience applies to the future. But for those with orthodox religious views things are not so simple. The notion of foreknowledge, at least, is essential to the orthodox concept of a supreme being. And yet the orthodox also wish to maintain the existence of free will, and thus reject determinism (though there are exceptions which are "orthodox" enough, e.g. Calvinism).
> 
> Now, some argue that knowledge of the future does not necessitate the future in any way: I may know that you are going to do x tomorrow, but that does not mean that you aren't freely choosing to do it. Whether or not this is right depends on how strongly we interpret what it means to have knowledge. If knowledge is supposed to imply certainty, then I cannot know that you are going to do x tomorrow unless I can somehow foretell the future. I may have very good reasons to believe that you will do x, and it may turn out that you will do x. But if it was the case that you might not have done x, then I did not really know.
> 
> One may of course use the term "knowledge" in a less strict sense in which the above would no longer apply. But when it comes to God's knowledge, as usually understood, there seems no doubt that it ought to be absolutely certain knowledge. God is after all supposed to be infallible.
> 
> Another common attempt to resolve the problem of foreknowledge is to claim that God exists outside of time. From this extra-temporal vantage point, God does not know the future beforehand. There is no "before" or "after" for God. Instead, He observes all of existence  past, present and future  as we observe the present. And as a result, His knowledge of the future is not foreknowledge, and so does not conflict with human freedom.
> 
> The "outside of time" argument is not easy to analyze because, so far as I can tell, no one knows what it really means to be outside of time. I believe the best way to tackle the argument is to consider how our situation is changed, if at all, on the supposition that God is in fact extra-temporal. God may be outside of time, but we're not. Now, for us the important thing is whether our future is something which is known. Wherever God is, if He knows our future, then from the vantage point of our present selves the future is in fact known. Our situation therefore has not changed in any way. The important thing is not how God possesses knowledge of the future, but that there is such knowledge. And if the future is in fact known, the conclusion that it is determined is unavoidable.
> 
> If the foregoing is not completely satisfactory (for as already mentioned the notion of extra-temporality is rather mysterious, so any discussion involving it is open to varying interpretations), there is another argument along the same lines. God, at least on most orthodox views, supposedly interacts with the world. But if there is such interaction with the world, then it must occur at particular points in time. And at those times, from our perspective, God certainly appears to have knowledge of our future.
> 
> Since I reject its premises, I do not accept theological determinism (the argument is valid, but not sound). Theological determinism is nevertheless important in that it reveals an inconsistency between the orthodox notions of foreknowledge and free will.
> Theological Determinism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was speaking from a theological standpoint, not the opinion of some 'philsospher' or professor who no doubt hasn't any belief in God.  I wouldn't expect you to be able to make the argument from a biblical standpoint, or you can google search and try again if you wish.
Click to expand...

are you naturally this stupid or do you work on it? 
theology is an opinion..  
o·pin·ion  [uh-pin-yuhn]  Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4.
Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> PainefulTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you identify specifically which theology you're referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Theology,  1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially *: the study of God and of God's relation to the world.
> 
> Specific issues are:  moral free will; God's possible existence and interaction/non-interaction in the universe and human affairs and the effect that might have on our free will; the Book of Life written from the foundation of the world (universe?) and its implications for free will.  The issue of free will is about as theological as it gets.  It deals with the source of our moral code (God or our self-awareness), whether God exists, and if so, whether It's interactive or laissez faire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?
Click to expand...

Is predestination a biblical teaching?
 by Matt Slick

Yes, predestination is biblical.  Predestination is the teaching that God has, from all eternity, freely determined whatsoever shall come to pass.  We find this in Ephesians 1:11 which says, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.  Notice Paul teaches that predestination occurs according to the purpose of God and that God works all things after His will.  The "all things" means exactly that, all things.

The word predestination comes from the Greek proorivzw "prooridzo."  The word occurs six times in six verses in the New Testament.

Acts 4:28, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
Romans 8:29-30, For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
1 Corinthians 2:7, but we speak Gods wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory.
Ephesians 1:5, He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.
Ephesians 1:11, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.
By looking at these verses we can see that predestination reveals God's great sovereignty and right to do with His creation as He desires.  But also we can see that predestination deals with salvation.  Unfortunately, many Christians do not accept the biblical teaching on predestination.  Many do not like the idea that God predestines people for salvation, but the fact is the Bible teaches it.

We might say that there are two main views concerning predestination.  One is the view that God has foreknowledge; that is, he knew who would choose Him and those are the ones He predestined to salvation.  The other idea is held by Calvinists who believe God sovereignly, of His own free will, predestined certain people to be saved, and His choice is not based upon looking into the future to see who would pick Him.

Either way, predestination is found in the Bible and it is a doctrine that we must accept.  So, to find which view you think is most biblical, study the above list of verses in their context and see if you think that God predestines according to the expected future human choices or not.
Is Predestination Biblical? | What is Predestination? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
you're running out of dodges..


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> PainefulTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.*
> 
> Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for  the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes  all your choices.......
> 
> You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict  between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is  lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not that God makes our choices, it's that they are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology.  Only those whose names are in the Book of Life, written from the foundation of the World, will be saved.   If our choices are predetermined, how can we have free will?
> 
> The theology doesn't work.  Either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact or even let us become aware of Itself, which would inevitably influence our choices.
> 
> What purpose does the universe serve but to provide us with the holy gift of unfettered free will?  God could do anything else without using the universe as a smoke screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Judeo-Christian theology does not teach determinism.
> 
> Your logic only works if you can't read, which leaves me to believe you haven't actually read, which is why I will address the rest of my post to people like you.
> 
> For the people that won't read, the Book of Life is the list of people that are judged after the Tribulation. since the Rapture occurs before that happens that means that people whose names are written in that book are saved after the Rapture. That does not in any way prove that determinism is true unless you ignore everything else in the Bible.
Click to expand...

see post #68


----------



## Daktoria

Quantum Windbag said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another non expert in theology oversimplifies something he doesn't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to construct consensus instead of just obstructively saying, "No"?
> 
> For all intents and purposes, what I said could have been right and you're just being contrarian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consensus is for Pharisees, not for honest people.
Click to expand...


  [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

What would you think if you said "2+2=4" or "Cat is spelled C-A-T" and someone just said, "No, you're wrong."

Without consensus, people get away with nonsense.  You might want to look into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism#Scholastic_method


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to construct consensus instead of just obstructively saying, "No"?
> 
> For all intents and purposes, what I said could have been right and you're just being contrarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consensus is for Pharisees, not for honest people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> @Quantum Windbag
> 
> What would you think if you said "2+2=4" or "Cat is spelled C-A-T" and someone just said, "No, you're wrong."
> 
> Without consensus, people get away with nonsense.  You might want to look into this: Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I would think they are as crazy as you are, why do you ask?


----------



## PainefulTruth

Newby said:


> Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?



Rev. 13:8--And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was madethe Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.

Wiki:  In Christianity and Judaism, the Book of Life (Hebrew: &#1505;&#1508;&#1512; &#1492;&#1495;&#1497;&#1497;&#1501;, transliterated Sefer HaChaim; Greek: &#946;&#953;&#946;&#955;&#943;&#959;&#957; &#964;&#8134;&#962; &#950;&#969;&#8134;&#962; Biblíon t&#275;s Z&#333;&#275;s) is the book in which God records the names of every person who is destined for Heaven or the World to Come.

It's impossible for it and free will to exist.  There is no fate, no "meant to be".  If there were such a Book of Life, then God would just create them straight into heaven with the memories of the choices they'd "made".  But God would know it's a lie and eventually so would we--we would know that we were phoney souls.


----------



## Daktoria

Quantum Windbag said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consensus is for Pharisees, not for honest people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Quantum Windbag
> 
> What would you think if you said "2+2=4" or "Cat is spelled C-A-T" and someone just said, "No, you're wrong."
> 
> Without consensus, people get away with nonsense.  You might want to look into this: Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think they are as crazy as you are, why do you ask?
Click to expand...


...because you said, "No, you're wrong," and I said, "Cat is spelled C-A-T."

What I said isn't crazy, but obstructing consensus like that is crazy...

...so I guess you're teasing me by trying to equivocate.  You actually understand what I'm saying, but are just trying to egg me on to see if I understand the free will of language games, so...

...why do I ask?

Yes, I do ask.  What would make you think that?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PainefulTruth said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. 13:8--And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was madethe Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.
> 
> Wiki:  In Christianity and Judaism, the Book of Life (Hebrew: &#1505;&#1508;&#1512; &#1492;&#1495;&#1497;&#1497;&#1501;, transliterated Sefer HaChaim; Greek: &#946;&#953;&#946;&#955;&#943;&#959;&#957; &#964;&#8134;&#962; &#950;&#969;&#8134;&#962; Biblíon t&#275;s Z&#333;&#275;s) is the book in which God records the names of every person who is destined for Heaven or the World to Come.
> 
> It's impossible for it and free will to exist.  There is no fate, no "meant to be".  If there were such a Book of Life, then God would just create them straight into heaven with the memories of the choices they'd "made".  But God would know it's a lie and eventually so would we--we would know that we were phoney souls.
Click to expand...


You get your theology from Wiki? No wonder you are confused.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> @Quantum Windbag
> 
> What would you think if you said "2+2=4" or "Cat is spelled C-A-T" and someone just said, "No, you're wrong."
> 
> Without consensus, people get away with nonsense.  You might want to look into this: Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think they are as crazy as you are, why do you ask?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...because you said, "No, you're wrong," and I said, "Cat is spelled C-A-T."
> 
> What I said isn't crazy, but obstructing consensus like that is crazy...
> 
> ...so I guess you're teasing me by trying to equivocate.  You actually understand what I'm saying, but are just trying to egg me on to see if I understand the free will of language games, so...
> 
> ...why do I ask?
> 
> Yes, I do ask.  What would make you think that?
Click to expand...


I did not say you were wrong, I said you oversimplified something you don't understand.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as Western  religion's interpretation of free will and fate is concerned:
> 
> Universal reconciliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Total depravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Catholics believe in the first.
> 
> Protestants believe in the second's various forms of election, but  ultimately, they all depend on original sin being overcome from the  predestination of grace and how this is revealed from "good works".  It  stems from Martin Luther's reintegration of the Hebrew Bible into the  Old Testament, so it stands to merit that Jews believe in the same thing  which they confirm in believing they're the chosen people as well as  "bashert".  Muslims also believe in "qadar".
> 
> The big problem with discussing fate is it's circular.  It begs the  question as to how people would know fate exists in the first place.   Those who claim fate might as well not be fated, but are just claiming  to be so.  Even when they say they "feel it", that doesn't mean their  feelings are reliable.  They might as well just be spoiled brats or  deluded nutcases who are brutally asserting their opinion as valuable.
> 
> On the other hand, the problem with discussing free will is opponents  can default proponents into enduring them, and thereby say it's fate  that they endure opposition.  You see this especially when fatalists  claim that free will advocates are simply stating their opinion, and  manipulate context out of syntax while calling free will advocates  dictators in their interpretation of words.  Eventually, free will  advocates claim their position is just blatantly obvious, and fatalists  take those words to justify their own position as well.
> 
> Another thing with fate and free will is the "structure versus agency"  debate.  Some people believe that fate refers to an internal lack of  agency to behave oneself.  Others believe that fate refers to an  external structure that can't be overcome.
> 
> There's also the randomness versus self-determination debate.  Some  people believe that free will refers to an external unpredictability.   Other people believe that free will refers to an internal ability to  determine oneself.
> 
> Anyway, a lot of the debate gets predisposed according to the direction that people approach it in "wanting" it to go.
> 
> That very "wanting" could be free willing in people thinking about which  way to debate, or it could be fated in being emotionally overloaded  toward a way.
> 
> Likewise, people approach the debate to represent what they want.  Heck,  you could have emotionally overloaded people wanting "free will" and  thoughtful people wanting "fate" for the sake of their own  self-interests in believing that those beliefs will encourage society to  go in an interesting direction.
> 
> I believe in free will because it is who I am, but most people around me  believe in fate because they enjoy getting me to do what they want  without consent.
> 
> On the side, I guess that explains why I believe most people are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another non expert in theology oversimplifies something he doesn't understand.
Click to expand...


Want to try and address what I actually said, or do you want to prove me right about your oversimplification and lack of understanding?


----------



## Daktoria

You're begging the question.  For all intents and purposes, I already understand.  You haven't shown what needs to be understood.

You're actually coming off like a fatalist now too as if fate is just blatantly obvious, and how those who aren't in touch obviously aren't saved.

Whatever.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> You're begging the question.  For all intents and purposes, I already understand.  You haven't shown what needs to be understood.
> 
> You're actually coming off like a fatalist now too as if fate is just blatantly obvious, and how those who aren't in touch obviously aren't saved.
> 
> Whatever.



You stated that Catholics believe in universal reconciliation, and that Protestants believe in total depravity, and seem to think that they contradict each other. This is a gross oversimplification of the debate, and it ignores the fact that universal reconciliation is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus I stated that you oversimplified something you do not understand, which you interpreted to mean something else.

Now you are attributing fallacies to me that I am not engaging in.


----------



## Daktoria

The Catholic Church recognizes that people are universally endowed with grace, and it's only if they commit mortal sins that they're condemned.  People aren't expected to perform good works to others' satisfaction since grace reveals itself in many different ways, nor can anyone endowed with grace anticipate anyone else's endowment. 

Where do you see a problem?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> The Catholic Church recognizes that people are universally endowed with grace, and it's only if they commit mortal sins that they're condemned.  People aren't expected to perform good works to others' satisfaction since grace reveals itself in many different ways, nor can anyone endowed with grace anticipate anyone else's endowment.
> 
> Where do you see a problem?



And everyone commits moral sins, which means they go to hell if they don't repent. Therefore, they do not believe in universal reconciliation, which is the belief that everyone will be reconciled with God regardless of their state of grace. That alone proves you don't fucking understand what you are talking about, would you like to point out something else you fucking don't understand so I can explain it to you?


----------



## Daktoria

I don't think you understand the difference between mortal and venial sins.  :-\


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> I don't think you understand the difference between mortal and venial sins.  :-\



I don't think you understand that committing a mortal sin will send you to hell if you don't fucking repent, which proves they do not believe in universal reconciliation, which is the fucking belief that everyone, even people who do not repent, will go to heaven


----------



## Daktoria

You can't repent a mortal sin.  What are you talking about?

Likewise, the point of a mortal sin is it destroys the grace behind which universal reconciliation is justified.


----------



## Daktoria

Look.  Universal reconciliation recognizes that all souls will be saved because of the grace of God.

A mortal sin kills the soul because grace has been destroyed.  No grace means no salvation because there's nothing to be saved.

Catholics recognize that everyone's endowed with grace, but mortal sins can still be committed such that grace is lost.  They cannot be repented since there is no grace available to repent with which should be common sense anyway.  If people could repent despite committing mortal sins, then what's the point?  It'd be like saying you could punch someone in the face as long as you say you're sorry after.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> You can't repent a mortal sin.  What are you talking about?
> 
> Likewise, the point of a mortal sin is it destroys the grace behind which universal reconciliation is justified.



Let me get this straight, you want me to simultaneously believe that Catholics believe in universal reconciliation and that it is impossible to repent mortal sins? Then, on top of those mutually contradictory positions, you want me to believe you know what you are talking about?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> Look.  Universal reconciliation recognizes that all souls will be saved because of the grace of God.
> 
> A mortal sin kills the soul because grace has been destroyed.  No grace means no salvation because there's nothing to be saved.
> 
> Catholics recognize that everyone's endowed with grace, but mortal sins can still be committed such that grace is lost.  They cannot be repented since there is no grace available to repent with which should be common sense anyway.  If people could repent despite committing mortal sins, then what's the point?  It'd be like saying you could punch someone in the face as long as you say you're sorry after.



That is not how it works.

If it makes you fell better, I was wrong when I said you don't understand what you are talking about. The truth is your are batshit crazy. 

Educate yourself.

Catholic Doctrine of Salvation | Penance | Salvation | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


----------



## PainefulTruth

Quantum Windbag said:


> You get your theology from Wiki? No wonder you are confused.



The theology preceded the Wiki quote which is nothing but a statement explaining what the Book of Life is.  But then I'm sure you knew that, as did anyone else that might have been lurking around.  It's always much easier to "convince" yourself.

I hope you noticed that I didn't return your sarcasm in kind.


----------



## Daktoria

Quantum Windbag said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look.  Universal reconciliation recognizes that all souls will be saved because of the grace of God.
> 
> A mortal sin kills the soul because grace has been destroyed.  No grace means no salvation because there's nothing to be saved.
> 
> Catholics recognize that everyone's endowed with grace, but mortal sins can still be committed such that grace is lost.  They cannot be repented since there is no grace available to repent with which should be common sense anyway.  If people could repent despite committing mortal sins, then what's the point?  It'd be like saying you could punch someone in the face as long as you say you're sorry after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how it works.
> 
> If it makes you fell better, I was wrong when I said you don't understand what you are talking about. The truth is your are batshit crazy.
> 
> Educate yourself.
> 
> Catholic Doctrine of Salvation | Penance | Salvation | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Click to expand...


Reconciliation is only possible with grace.

Once grace is lost, it can't be reconciled.  What you've shown there is an excuse that's made in order to keep people happy who are worried about falling from salvation after committing mortal sins.  

Salvation needs grace.

Mortal sins destroy grace.

Reconciliation needs grace.

Technically speaking, you can still be saved if you reconcile after losing grace, but actually speaking, that's impossible.  It's just something that's said to keep people happy.

Another way to think of it is like a car that gets in a wreck.

Cars need spark plugs to drive from one point to another.

Wrecks destroy spark plugs.

Driving to a garage to get another spark plug takes a spark plug in the first place.

Technically speaking, if you drive to a garage after destroying your spark plug, you can get another, but actually speaking, that's impossible.  It's just something that's said so people who are worried about destroying their spark plugs are kept happy.


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theological Determinism
> 
> Theological determinism comes in two varieties. The first is based on the notion of foreknowledge: if God is an omniscient being, and if omniscience applies to the future (as well as to the past and present), then the future is known by God. But in that case, the future can only be what God knows it to be. No alternatives are possible. If God knows that it is going to rain tomorrow, then, regardless of what the weather forecast might be, it will definitely rain tomorrow. And if God knows that Jerry Falwell will decide to become an atheist sometime next week, then that is what inevitably must happen.
> 
> The second kind of theological determinism follows from the concept of divine preordination: if God is the ultimate cause behind everything, then He has preordained all that will ever occur, and once again there can be no deviation from the future's pre-set pattern. The preordination of the future is by definition a kind of determinism, so there is no arguing against it if one accepts the premise. (This is a type of causal determinism; the first kind of theological determinism is not.)
> 
> Theological determinism depends, of course, on whether or not God exists. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being, this kind of determinism is not logically compelling. And even if one accepts God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has preordained the future, or that He his omniscient, or that omniscience applies to the future. But for those with orthodox religious views things are not so simple. The notion of foreknowledge, at least, is essential to the orthodox concept of a supreme being. And yet the orthodox also wish to maintain the existence of free will, and thus reject determinism (though there are exceptions which are "orthodox" enough, e.g. Calvinism).
> 
> Now, some argue that knowledge of the future does not necessitate the future in any way: I may know that you are going to do x tomorrow, but that does not mean that you aren't freely choosing to do it. Whether or not this is right depends on how strongly we interpret what it means to have knowledge. If knowledge is supposed to imply certainty, then I cannot know that you are going to do x tomorrow unless I can somehow foretell the future. I may have very good reasons to believe that you will do x, and it may turn out that you will do x. But if it was the case that you might not have done x, then I did not really know.
> 
> One may of course use the term "knowledge" in a less strict sense in which the above would no longer apply. But when it comes to God's knowledge, as usually understood, there seems no doubt that it ought to be absolutely certain knowledge. God is after all supposed to be infallible.
> 
> Another common attempt to resolve the problem of foreknowledge is to claim that God exists outside of time. From this extra-temporal vantage point, God does not know the future beforehand. There is no "before" or "after" for God. Instead, He observes all of existence &#8212; past, present and future &#8212; as we observe the present. And as a result, His knowledge of the future is not foreknowledge, and so does not conflict with human freedom.
> 
> The "outside of time" argument is not easy to analyze because, so far as I can tell, no one knows what it really means to be outside of time. I believe the best way to tackle the argument is to consider how our situation is changed, if at all, on the supposition that God is in fact extra-temporal. God may be outside of time, but we're not. Now, for us the important thing is whether our future is something which is known. Wherever God is, if He knows our future, then from the vantage point of our present selves the future is in fact known. Our situation therefore has not changed in any way. The important thing is not how God possesses knowledge of the future, but that there is such knowledge. And if the future is in fact known, the conclusion that it is determined is unavoidable.
> 
> If the foregoing is not completely satisfactory (for as already mentioned the notion of extra-temporality is rather mysterious, so any discussion involving it is open to varying interpretations), there is another argument along the same lines. God, at least on most orthodox views, supposedly interacts with the world. But if there is such interaction with the world, then it must occur at particular points in time. And at those times, from our perspective, God certainly appears to have knowledge of our future.
> 
> Since I reject its premises, I do not accept theological determinism (the argument is valid, but not sound). Theological determinism is nevertheless important in that it reveals an inconsistency between the orthodox notions of foreknowledge and free will.
> Theological Determinism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was speaking from a theological standpoint, not the opinion of some 'philsospher' or professor who no doubt hasn't any belief in God.  I wouldn't expect you to be able to make the argument from a biblical standpoint, or you can google search and try again if you wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> are you naturally this stupid or do you work on it?
> theology is an opinion..
> o·pin·ion  [uh-pin-yuhn]  Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
> 2.
> a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
> 3.
> the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
> 4.
> Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
> 5.
> a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
Click to expand...




> *the·ol·o·gy *noun \th&#275;-&#712;ä-l&#601;-j&#275;\ : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience : the study of God and God's relation to the world
> 
> : a system of religious beliefs or ideas



Gee, I don't see anything about 'opinion' in there.. 




> *phi·los·o·phy *noun \f&#601;-&#712;lä-s(&#601;-)f&#275;\ : the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
> 
> : a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
> 
> : a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live



Don't see anything about religion in there...


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PainefulTruth said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Theology,  1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially *: the study of God and of God's relation to the world.
> 
> Specific issues are:  moral free will; God's possible existence and interaction/non-interaction in the universe and human affairs and the effect that might have on our free will; the Book of Life written from the foundation of the world (universe?) and its implications for free will.  The issue of free will is about as theological as it gets.  It deals with the source of our moral code (God or our self-awareness), whether God exists, and if so, whether It's interactive or laissez faire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is predestination a biblical teaching?
> by Matt Slick
> 
> Yes, predestination is biblical.  Predestination is the teaching that God has, from all eternity, freely determined whatsoever shall come to pass.  We find this in Ephesians 1:11 which says, &#8220;also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.&#8221;  Notice Paul teaches that predestination occurs according to the purpose of God and that God works all things after His will.  The "all things" means exactly that, all things.
> 
> The word predestination comes from the Greek proorivzw "prooridzo."  The word occurs six times in six verses in the New Testament.
> 
> Acts 4:28, &#8220;to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.&#8221;
> Romans 8:29-30, &#8220;For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.&#8221;
> 1 Corinthians 2:7, &#8220;but we speak God&#8217;s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory.&#8221;
> Ephesians 1:5, &#8220;He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.&#8221;
> Ephesians 1:11, &#8220;also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.&#8221;
> By looking at these verses we can see that predestination reveals God's great sovereignty and right to do with His creation as He desires.  But also we can see that predestination deals with salvation.  Unfortunately, many Christians do not accept the biblical teaching on predestination.  Many do not like the idea that God predestines people for salvation, but the fact is the Bible teaches it.
> 
> We might say that there are two main views concerning predestination.  One is the view that God has foreknowledge; that is, he knew who would choose Him and those are the ones He predestined to salvation.  The other idea is held by Calvinists who believe God sovereignly, of His own free will, predestined certain people to be saved, and His choice is not based upon looking into the future to see who would pick Him.
> 
> Either way, predestination is found in the Bible and it is a doctrine that we must accept.  So, to find which view you think is most biblical, study the above list of verses in their context and see if you think that God predestines according to the expected future human choices or not.
> Is Predestination Biblical? | What is Predestination? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> you're running out of dodges..
Click to expand...


Obviously google is your friend..   Have you ever actually read and/or studied the Bible itself?  Can you answer a question on the Christian faith or the Bible without resorting to Google and grabbing the first opinion you find that may back up your argument?

Let's take one example...

*Ephesians 1:11, &#8220;also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.&#8221;*

You do realize that he (do you know who?) is speaking via a letter to a new group of fellow Christians in Ephesus with words of encouragement to continue in their faith. Why would they  need words of encouragement if everything is predestined? What would be the point in having a Bible at all if everything were predestined?  When it comes to predestination, there is such a thing as an 'upper story' and a 'lower story', the 'lower story' is used to fulfill the 'upper story'.  The upper story is predestined by God, the ending is known, however, the details of how that is fulfilled is not known.  When he speaks of predestination in this context, he is speaking of the inheritance of all Christians to salvation through Jesus Christ, which was predestined, not that every individual at that present time or in the future is either predestined to be a Christian or not.  What would be the point of Jesus's teachings, training apostles?  His whole message is about bringing people to Christ, is it not?  What would be the point if everyone is either predestined or not to be a Chrisitian, then no effort to spread the gospel would be needed.  The context of predestination as you seem to understand it from a Biblical standpoint has no logic when thought through.  And I don't think you've ever studied context or been taught the concept of context when it comes to studying the Bible.  Context is everything, you can't just go google a segment of a verse and think you understand what it means.  It also says in the Bible that unless you read it with an open heart and mind and welcome the holy spirit to guide you through the journey, you will have only confusion.


----------



## editec

pacer said:


> Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?



The Christian belief in free will AND prophetcy is a very good example of how confused some Christians are about the nature of reality.


Some Christian and Hebrew  scholars believe in free will but do NOT believe that even GOD know the future.

Personally I believe that our free will merely FEELS like free will.

I believe that we act first (without thinking) and then tell ourselves a story about why we acted the way we did.

Does that sound crazy?

Okay then please tell me where your words come from before you say them.

Now unless you're going to try to convince me that you are crafting your every sentence before you say it (I mean, I know we_ can_ do that but DO WE?) then where is the FREE WILL in the sentence you utter?

If you didn't think about an action or statement first, where is the FREE WILL  that caused it to happen?
*
Reacting is NOT thinking*


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't repent a mortal sin.  What are you talking about?
> 
> Likewise, the point of a mortal sin is it destroys the grace behind which universal reconciliation is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, you want me to simultaneously believe that Catholics believe in universal reconciliation and that it is impossible to repent mortal sins? Then, on top of those mutually contradictory positions, you want me to believe you know what you are talking about?
Click to expand...

congratulations! you've just described all christianity !


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was speaking from a theological standpoint, not the opinion of some 'philsospher' or professor who no doubt hasn't any belief in God.  I wouldn't expect you to be able to make the argument from a biblical standpoint, or you can google search and try again if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> are you naturally this stupid or do you work on it?
> theology is an opinion..
> o·pin·ion  [uh-pin-yuhn]  Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
> 2.
> a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
> 3.
> the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
> 4.
> Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
> 5.
> a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *the·ol·o·gy *noun \th&#275;-&#712;ä-l&#601;-j&#275;\ : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience : the study of God and God's relation to the world
> 
> : a system of religious beliefs or ideas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, I don't see anything about 'opinion' in there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *phi·los·o·phy *noun \f&#601;-&#712;lä-s(&#601;-)f&#275;\ : the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
> 
> : a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
> 
> : a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't see anything about religion in there...
Click to expand...

of course you would'nt ...
as you will not accept that your religion /faith is based on and opinion and nothing else.


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?
> 
> 
> 
> Is predestination a biblical teaching?
> by Matt Slick
> 
> Yes, predestination is biblical.  Predestination is the teaching that God has, from all eternity, freely determined whatsoever shall come to pass.  We find this in Ephesians 1:11 which says, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.  Notice Paul teaches that predestination occurs according to the purpose of God and that God works all things after His will.  The "all things" means exactly that, all things.
> 
> The word predestination comes from the Greek proorivzw "prooridzo."  The word occurs six times in six verses in the New Testament.
> 
> Acts 4:28, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
> Romans 8:29-30, For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
> 1 Corinthians 2:7, but we speak Gods wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory.
> Ephesians 1:5, He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.
> Ephesians 1:11, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.
> By looking at these verses we can see that predestination reveals God's great sovereignty and right to do with His creation as He desires.  But also we can see that predestination deals with salvation.  Unfortunately, many Christians do not accept the biblical teaching on predestination.  Many do not like the idea that God predestines people for salvation, but the fact is the Bible teaches it.
> 
> We might say that there are two main views concerning predestination.  One is the view that God has foreknowledge; that is, he knew who would choose Him and those are the ones He predestined to salvation.  The other idea is held by Calvinists who believe God sovereignly, of His own free will, predestined certain people to be saved, and His choice is not based upon looking into the future to see who would pick Him.
> 
> Either way, predestination is found in the Bible and it is a doctrine that we must accept.  So, to find which view you think is most biblical, study the above list of verses in their context and see if you think that God predestines according to the expected future human choices or not.
> Is Predestination Biblical? | What is Predestination? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> you're running out of dodges..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously google is your friend..   Have you ever actually read and/or studied the Bible itself?  Can you answer a question on the Christian faith or the Bible without resorting to Google and grabbing the first opinion you find that may back up your argument?
> 
> Let's take one example...
> 
> *Ephesians 1:11, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.*
> 
> You do realize that he (do you know who?) is speaking via a letter to a new group of fellow Christians in Ephesus with words of encouragement to continue in their faith. Why would they  need words of encouragement if everything is predestined? What would be the point in having a Bible at all if everything were predestined?  When it comes to predestination, there is such a thing as an 'upper story' and a 'lower story', the 'lower story' is used to fulfill the 'upper story'.  The upper story is predestined by God, the ending is known, however, the details of how that is fulfilled is not known.  When he speaks of predestination in this context, he is speaking of the inheritance of all Christians to salvation through Jesus Christ, which was predestined, not that every individual at that present time or in the future is either predestined to be a Christian or not.  What would be the point of Jesus's teachings, training apostles?  His whole message is about bringing people to Christ, is it not?  What would be the point if everyone is either predestined or not to be a Chrisitian, then no effort to spread the gospel would be needed.  The context of predestination as you seem to understand it from a Biblical standpoint has no logic when thought through.  And I don't think you've ever studied context or been taught the concept of context when it comes to studying the Bible.  Context is everything, you can't just go google a segment of a verse and think you understand what it means.  It also says in the Bible that unless you read it with an open heart and mind and welcome the holy spirit to guide you through the journey, you will have only confusion.
Click to expand...

dodge !!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PainefulTruth said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get your theology from Wiki? No wonder you are confused.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theology preceded the Wiki quote which is nothing but a statement explaining what the Book of Life is.  But then I'm sure you knew that, as did anyone else that might have been lurking around.  It's always much easier to "convince" yourself.
> 
> I hope you noticed that I didn't return your sarcasm in kind.
Click to expand...


The Book of Life is not unchanging, people can be blotted out (Exodus 32:33) and added to it. Therefore there is no such thing as predestination in the sense that God knows who will go to hell, which is why citing the hypothetical existence of a book is not proof of anything other than the book's existence. Which brings us back to you not understanding theology, wherever it is you get it from. If you don't get it from the Bible, you will always get it wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look.  Universal reconciliation recognizes that all souls will be saved because of the grace of God.
> 
> A mortal sin kills the soul because grace has been destroyed.  No grace means no salvation because there's nothing to be saved.
> 
> Catholics recognize that everyone's endowed with grace, but mortal sins can still be committed such that grace is lost.  They cannot be repented since there is no grace available to repent with which should be common sense anyway.  If people could repent despite committing mortal sins, then what's the point?  It'd be like saying you could punch someone in the face as long as you say you're sorry after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not how it works.
> 
> If it makes you fell better, I was wrong when I said you don't understand what you are talking about. The truth is your are batshit crazy.
> 
> Educate yourself.
> 
> Catholic Doctrine of Salvation | Penance | Salvation | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reconciliation is only possible with grace.
> 
> Once grace is lost, it can't be reconciled.  What you've shown there is an excuse that's made in order to keep people happy who are worried about falling from salvation after committing mortal sins.
> 
> Salvation needs grace.
> 
> Mortal sins destroy grace.
> 
> Reconciliation needs grace.
> 
> Technically speaking, you can still be saved if you reconcile after losing grace, but actually speaking, that's impossible.  It's just something that's said to keep people happy.
> 
> Another way to think of it is like a car that gets in a wreck.
> 
> Cars need spark plugs to drive from one point to another.
> 
> Wrecks destroy spark plugs.
> 
> Driving to a garage to get another spark plug takes a spark plug in the first place.
> 
> Technically speaking, if you drive to a garage after destroying your spark plug, you can get another, but actually speaking, that's impossible.  It's just something that's said so people who are worried about destroying their spark plugs are kept happy.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to prove how stupid you are?

The major problem you have is your complete lack of understanding of a complex subject. Utter depravity is only one of the things you have to consider when we delve into Calvinism, which is the basis of all deterministic theology in Protestantism.

The five points of Calvinism:


Total depravity.
Unconditional election.
Limited atonement.
Irresistible grace.
Perseverance of the saints.
The key point here is not total depravity, it is limited atonement. Total depravity/original sin is not the opposite of universal reconciliation, limited atonement is. Even Catholics believe in original sin, and that people are born sinful. The fact that you don't know this is more proof that you are oversimplifying a complex subject, which gets us back to my original claim which offended you. 



Yet you keep posting, and proving me right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't repent a mortal sin.  What are you talking about?
> 
> Likewise, the point of a mortal sin is it destroys the grace behind which universal reconciliation is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, you want me to simultaneously believe that Catholics believe in universal reconciliation and that it is impossible to repent mortal sins? Then, on top of those mutually contradictory positions, you want me to believe you know what you are talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> congratulations! you've just described all christianity !
Click to expand...


No I didn't, I described your idiotic attempt to dismiss it.


----------



## Newby

daws101 said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is predestination a biblical teaching?
> by Matt Slick
> 
> Yes, predestination is biblical.  Predestination is the teaching that God has, from all eternity, freely determined whatsoever shall come to pass.  We find this in Ephesians 1:11 which says, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.  Notice Paul teaches that predestination occurs according to the purpose of God and that God works all things after His will.  The "all things" means exactly that, all things.
> 
> The word predestination comes from the Greek proorivzw "prooridzo."  The word occurs six times in six verses in the New Testament.
> 
> Acts 4:28, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.
> Romans 8:29-30, For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
> 1 Corinthians 2:7, but we speak Gods wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory.
> Ephesians 1:5, He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.
> Ephesians 1:11, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.
> By looking at these verses we can see that predestination reveals God's great sovereignty and right to do with His creation as He desires.  But also we can see that predestination deals with salvation.  Unfortunately, many Christians do not accept the biblical teaching on predestination.  Many do not like the idea that God predestines people for salvation, but the fact is the Bible teaches it.
> 
> We might say that there are two main views concerning predestination.  One is the view that God has foreknowledge; that is, he knew who would choose Him and those are the ones He predestined to salvation.  The other idea is held by Calvinists who believe God sovereignly, of His own free will, predestined certain people to be saved, and His choice is not based upon looking into the future to see who would pick Him.
> 
> Either way, predestination is found in the Bible and it is a doctrine that we must accept.  So, to find which view you think is most biblical, study the above list of verses in their context and see if you think that God predestines according to the expected future human choices or not.
> Is Predestination Biblical? | What is Predestination? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
> you're running out of dodges..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously google is your friend..   Have you ever actually read and/or studied the Bible itself?  Can you answer a question on the Christian faith or the Bible without resorting to Google and grabbing the first opinion you find that may back up your argument?
> 
> Let's take one example...
> 
> *Ephesians 1:11, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.*
> 
> You do realize that he (do you know who?) is speaking via a letter to a new group of fellow Christians in Ephesus with words of encouragement to continue in their faith. Why would they  need words of encouragement if everything is predestined? What would be the point in having a Bible at all if everything were predestined?  When it comes to predestination, there is such a thing as an 'upper story' and a 'lower story', the 'lower story' is used to fulfill the 'upper story'.  The upper story is predestined by God, the ending is known, however, the details of how that is fulfilled is not known.  When he speaks of predestination in this context, he is speaking of the inheritance of all Christians to salvation through Jesus Christ, which was predestined, not that every individual at that present time or in the future is either predestined to be a Christian or not.  What would be the point of Jesus's teachings, training apostles?  His whole message is about bringing people to Christ, is it not?  What would be the point if everyone is either predestined or not to be a Chrisitian, then no effort to spread the gospel would be needed.  The context of predestination as you seem to understand it from a Biblical standpoint has no logic when thought through.  And I don't think you've ever studied context or been taught the concept of context when it comes to studying the Bible.  Context is everything, you can't just go google a segment of a verse and think you understand what it means.  It also says in the Bible that unless you read it with an open heart and mind and welcome the holy spirit to guide you through the journey, you will have only confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge !!
Click to expand...


You're clueless...


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, you want me to simultaneously believe that Catholics believe in universal reconciliation and that it is impossible to repent mortal sins? Then, on top of those mutually contradictory positions, you want me to believe you know what you are talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> congratulations! you've just described all christianity !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn't, I described your idiotic attempt to dismiss it.
Click to expand...

scathing retort!


----------



## daws101

Newby said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously google is your friend..   Have you ever actually read and/or studied the Bible itself?  Can you answer a question on the Christian faith or the Bible without resorting to Google and grabbing the first opinion you find that may back up your argument?
> 
> Let's take one example...
> 
> *Ephesians 1:11, also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.*
> 
> You do realize that he (do you know who?) is speaking via a letter to a new group of fellow Christians in Ephesus with words of encouragement to continue in their faith. Why would they  need words of encouragement if everything is predestined? What would be the point in having a Bible at all if everything were predestined?  When it comes to predestination, there is such a thing as an 'upper story' and a 'lower story', the 'lower story' is used to fulfill the 'upper story'.  The upper story is predestined by God, the ending is known, however, the details of how that is fulfilled is not known.  When he speaks of predestination in this context, he is speaking of the inheritance of all Christians to salvation through Jesus Christ, which was predestined, not that every individual at that present time or in the future is either predestined to be a Christian or not.  What would be the point of Jesus's teachings, training apostles?  His whole message is about bringing people to Christ, is it not?  What would be the point if everyone is either predestined or not to be a Chrisitian, then no effort to spread the gospel would be needed.  The context of predestination as you seem to understand it from a Biblical standpoint has no logic when thought through.  And I don't think you've ever studied context or been taught the concept of context when it comes to studying the Bible.  Context is everything, you can't just go google a segment of a verse and think you understand what it means.  It also says in the Bible that unless you read it with an open heart and mind and welcome the holy spirit to guide you through the journey, you will have only confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> dodge !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're clueless...
Click to expand...

no, that would be you..
I grew up studying the bible and the book of mormon.
your overlong justification /rationalizing is a dodge...

 " Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?" 
you do remember writing this ,don't you.?
my guess is you, in your massive hubris assumed ,wrongly that no one would or could answer it. 
I answered it correctly and as i EXPECTED YOU RAN!! 
BTW i read the bible with an open heart and mind and this was the result:


----------



## Daktoria

Quantum Windbag said:


> Are you trying to prove how stupid you are?
> 
> The major problem you have is your complete lack of understanding of a complex subject. Utter depravity is only one of the things you have to consider when we delve into Calvinism, which is the basis of all deterministic theology in Protestantism.
> 
> The five points of Calvinism:
> 
> 
> Total depravity.
> Unconditional election.
> Limited atonement.
> Irresistible grace.
> Perseverance of the saints.
> The key point here is not total depravity, it is limited atonement. Total depravity/original sin is not the opposite of universal reconciliation, limited atonement is. Even Catholics believe in original sin, and that people are born sinful. The fact that you don't know this is more proof that you are oversimplifying a complex subject, which gets us back to my original claim which offended you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you keep posting, and proving me right.



Catholics also believe that people are universally endowed with grace to overcome original sin.  Calvinists among others believe in predestination where some are elected for salvation, but others are not.

I don't know why you're bringing up limited atonement here.  That deals with the synthesis of grace plus acceptance, not grace by itself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to prove how stupid you are?
> 
> The major problem you have is your complete lack of understanding of a complex subject. Utter depravity is only one of the things you have to consider when we delve into Calvinism, which is the basis of all deterministic theology in Protestantism.
> 
> The five points of Calvinism:
> 
> 
> Total depravity.
> Unconditional election.
> Limited atonement.
> Irresistible grace.
> Perseverance of the saints.
> The key point here is not total depravity, it is limited atonement. Total depravity/original sin is not the opposite of universal reconciliation, limited atonement is. Even Catholics believe in original sin, and that people are born sinful. The fact that you don't know this is more proof that you are oversimplifying a complex subject, which gets us back to my original claim which offended you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you keep posting, and proving me right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholics also believe that people are universally endowed with grace to overcome original sin.  Calvinists among others believe in predestination where some are elected for salvation, but others are not.
> 
> I don't know why you're bringing up limited atonement here.  That deals with the synthesis of grace plus acceptance, not grace by itself.
Click to expand...


Even after I take the time to explain where you are oversimplifying you still spout nonsense, what a surprise.


----------



## PainefulTruth

Quantum Windbag said:


> The Book of Life is not unchanging, people can be blotted out (Exodus 32:33) and added to it. Therefore there is no such thing as predestination in the sense that God knows who will go to hell, which is why citing the hypothetical existence of a book is not proof of anything other than the book's existence. Which brings us back to you not understanding theology, wherever it is you get it from. If you don't get it from the Bible, you will always get it wrong.



How is the Book of Life hypothetical if it's written in holy scripture, at least for those who believe that it's holy?  The passage in Rev. 13:8 says "And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. *They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made*.

Now your quote from Ex. does appear to contradict that--not the first of many such contradictions.  But......if God is omniscient and knows everything, then It would know who was going to be blotted out before they were even written in, making free will not possible as well.  The answer is that free will is a gift (a portion of It's omniscience presented to us, if you will) putting us beyond God's knowledge, not an externally imposed limitation.


----------



## pacer

Some Christian groups read more into Scripture than what is actually there.

*Jeremiah 32:17
17*
"Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you."

Interpretation from *Christianity.com*

God can do all things and accomplish all things. Nothing is too difficult for Him, *and He orchestrates and determines everything that is going to happen in your life, in my life, in America, and throughout the world. *Whatever He wants to do in the universe, He does, for nothing is impossible with Him (Jeremiah 32:17).

Therefore , if everything is orchestrated by God and he determines everything we do, we do not have free will.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PainefulTruth said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Life is not unchanging, people can be blotted out (Exodus 32:33) and added to it. Therefore there is no such thing as predestination in the sense that God knows who will go to hell, which is why citing the hypothetical existence of a book is not proof of anything other than the book's existence. Which brings us back to you not understanding theology, wherever it is you get it from. If you don't get it from the Bible, you will always get it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the Book of Life hypothetical if it's written in holy scripture, at least for those who believe that it's holy?  The passage in Rev. 13:8 says "And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. *They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made*.
> 
> Now your quote from Ex. does appear to contradict that--not the first of many such contradictions.  But......if God is omniscient and knows everything, then It would know who was going to be blotted out before they were even written in, making free will not possible as well.  The answer is that free will is a gift (a portion of It's omniscience presented to us, if you will) putting us beyond God's knowledge, not an externally imposed limitation.
Click to expand...


It is hypothetical because, unlike idiots, I don't see every single word of the Bible as being literal. 

Also, as I already proved, it is possible to get your name blotted out of the book, and Jesus made it possible for new people to be added to it. That makes your insistence that you are right because you found one verse, while simultaneously ignoring everything else in the Bible, pathetic.


----------



## PainefulTruth

Quantum Windbag said:


> It is hypothetical because, unlike idiots, I don't see every single word of the Bible as being literal.



So the quote from Rev. is.....what?  How should it read?



> Also, as I already proved, it is possible to get your name blotted out of the book, and Jesus made it possible for new people to be added to it. That makes your insistence that you are right because you found one verse, while simultaneously ignoring everything else in the Bible, pathetic.



You proved no such thing.  You only posted one biblical quote that contradicted another. You're not using verses to prove your theology, you're using your theology to "prove" some of your "holy scripture" while excluding others.  On top of that you don't say if the verses are allegory, false, literal, or go with the catch all dodge, that's for only God to know.  If we can't understand the verses as written, why is that and who are they written for?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PainefulTruth said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is hypothetical because, unlike idiots, I don't see every single word of the Bible as being literal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the quote from Rev. is.....what?  How should it read?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, as I already proved, it is possible to get your name blotted out of the book, and Jesus made it possible for new people to be added to it. That makes your insistence that you are right because you found one verse, while simultaneously ignoring everything else in the Bible, pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You proved no such thing.  You only posted one biblical quote that contradicted another. You're not using verses to prove your theology, you're using your theology to "prove" some of your "holy scripture" while excluding others.  On top of that you don't say if the verses are allegory, false, literal, or go with the catch all dodge, that's for only God to know.  If we can't understand the verses as written, why is that and who are they written for?
Click to expand...


I proved no such thing? Let me guess, Exodus doesn't count in your brain because it isn't in Revelations.

Get a life, idiot, you can't handle theology.


----------



## PainefulTruth

I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice the sarcasm, name calling and non-responsiveness in your post--which, BTW, also leaves my post unchallenged.  What'd you do, pick up on the first sentence and ignore the rest?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

PainefulTruth said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only one to notice the sarcasm, name calling and non-responsiveness in your post--which, BTW, also leaves my post unchallenged.  What'd you do, pick up on the first sentence and ignore the rest?



Until you actual respond to my points, instead of just repeating the assertion that single verse makes you right, I see no reason to address anything you say, or take you seriously. Feel free to pretend you won, as long as you don't do it outside your head.


----------



## Daktoria

Quantum Windbag said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to prove how stupid you are?
> 
> The major problem you have is your complete lack of understanding of a complex subject. Utter depravity is only one of the things you have to consider when we delve into Calvinism, which is the basis of all deterministic theology in Protestantism.
> 
> The five points of Calvinism:
> 
> 
> Total depravity.
> Unconditional election.
> Limited atonement.
> Irresistible grace.
> Perseverance of the saints.
> The key point here is not total depravity, it is limited atonement. Total depravity/original sin is not the opposite of universal reconciliation, limited atonement is. Even Catholics believe in original sin, and that people are born sinful. The fact that you don't know this is more proof that you are oversimplifying a complex subject, which gets us back to my original claim which offended you.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you keep posting, and proving me right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholics also believe that people are universally endowed with grace to overcome original sin.  Calvinists among others believe in predestination where some are elected for salvation, but others are not.
> 
> I don't know why you're bringing up limited atonement here.  That deals with the synthesis of grace plus acceptance, not grace by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even after I take the time to explain where you are oversimplifying you still spout nonsense, what a surprise.
Click to expand...


Do you want to construct consensus, or not?

Again, for all intents and purposes, what I said might as well have been right and you're just saying it's wrong.

If you want to call something nonsensical, then say what makes sense that relates with what's said.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catholics also believe that people are universally endowed with grace to overcome original sin.  Calvinists among others believe in predestination where some are elected for salvation, but others are not.
> 
> I don't know why you're bringing up limited atonement here.  That deals with the synthesis of grace plus acceptance, not grace by itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even after I take the time to explain where you are oversimplifying you still spout nonsense, what a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want to construct consensus, or not?
> 
> Again, for all intents and purposes, what I said might as well have been right and you're just saying it's wrong.
> 
> If you want to call something nonsensical, then say what makes sense that relates with what's said.
Click to expand...


Why would you ask me the same question twice?

I don't give a fuck about meeting you in the middle. I don't want to agree with you, find common ground, or even trying to get you to admit you are wrong. All I care about is making you look stupid.

Will you stop asking about a consensus now?


----------



## Daktoria

Consensus isn't compromise.  :-\

I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle.  I'm asking you to make sense.

In fact, this even has religious precedent.  You should be a little ashamed that you're not willing to do this:

Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## daws101

Daktoria said:


> Consensus isn't compromise.  :-\
> 
> I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle.  I'm asking you to make sense.
> 
> In fact, this even has religious precedent.  You should be a little ashamed that you're not willing to do this:
> 
> Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


don't expect a logical or even honest answer from QW


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> Consensus isn't compromise.  :-\
> 
> I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle.  I'm asking you to make sense.
> 
> In fact, this even has religious precedent.  You should be a little ashamed that you're not willing to do this:
> 
> Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



What is this, the fourth time? I do not want consensus.

Did that make sense? If it doesn't, I suggest you look up what consensus means. Until you get that you are wrong, asking me to agree with you is going to keep not making sense.


----------



## Daktoria

Quantum Windbag said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consensus isn't compromise.  :-\
> 
> I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle.  I'm asking you to make sense.
> 
> In fact, this even has religious precedent.  You should be a little ashamed that you're not willing to do this:
> 
> Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this, the fourth time? I do not want consensus.
> 
> Did that make sense? If it doesn't, I suggest you look up what consensus means. Until you get that you are wrong, asking me to agree with you is going to keep not making sense.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand.

In society, it doesn't matter if you want consensus.  You need consensus:

1) People can have disagreements because of believing in the same ideas but just in different words,

2) People can be jerks who screw around over ideas, and

3) People can have honest misunderstandings, disagreements, and lack of sympathy over ideas, but they still have to coexist, so they need to get along.

If you don't realize consensus, then you end up with conflict, and in democracy, that means tyranny of the majority where an appeal to popularity wins instead and minorities get discriminated against.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Daktoria said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consensus isn't compromise.  :-\
> 
> I'm not asking you to meet me in the middle.  I'm asking you to make sense.
> 
> In fact, this even has religious precedent.  You should be a little ashamed that you're not willing to do this:
> 
> Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this, the fourth time? I do not want consensus.
> 
> Did that make sense? If it doesn't, I suggest you look up what consensus means. Until you get that you are wrong, asking me to agree with you is going to keep not making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand.
> 
> In society, it doesn't matter if you want consensus.  You need consensus:
> 
> 1) People can have disagreements because of believing in the same ideas but just in different words,
> 
> 2) People can be jerks who screw around over ideas, and
> 
> 3) People can have honest misunderstandings, disagreements, and lack of sympathy over ideas, but they still have to coexist, so they need to get along.
> 
> If you don't realize consensus, then you end up with conflict, and in democracy, that means tyranny of the majority where an appeal to popularity wins instead and minorities get discriminated against.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand, you are wrong.

Let me clarify that for you, you are the opposite of right.

In order for there to be consensus you have to admit you are wrong, and agree with me. You are trying to get me to join you in being wrong for the sake of society. I am not going to do that even if it brings about the zombie apocalypse.

If you are so hung up on society and consensus, feel free to agree with me. I don't give a fuck because I don't care if society crashes, I don't need the fake approval of judgmental assholes.


----------



## Daktoria

...so if someone says another is wrong, it counts?

2+2=4.  Cat is spelled C-A-T.  The sky is blue.

YOU'RE WRONG! 

Uh huh.


----------



## Daktoria

Let's be clear.

We're talking about dogmas here, so what we're talking about is a little different compared to ordinary analysis.

However, this is what makes consensus even more important.  Dogmas are defined in terms of other dogmas.  They only way you can understand them is if you have a mutual understanding of which dogmas correspond with other dogmas.

Unto themselves, dogmas have no intrinsic meaning.  They're just characters lined up.  It's when people mutually understand that alignment that they mean something.


----------



## amrchaos

I think I kind of understand what the OP is getting at.

If we have free will, then God cannot be all knowing and all powerful because Free will will allow some randomness into the universe.  I.E.  God can't possibly know exactly what you will do in the future because your free will allows you to mak a different decisions, on the other hand if he did know then free will can not exist because you are following a script that god has written before hand(How else would God know what is to occur)

So there seems to be a contradiction here--either We have free will even from God, or we believe we have free will but God has determined everything ahead of time and we only are misleading ourselves into believing we are in control of our destiny.

Of course Free Will versus Predetermination has some similiar contradictions on their own.

For instance--If we live in a fully predetermined universe--God already knows which of us is going to Heaven and Hell before we are even created.  In fact, God has designed all of reality so therefore all good and evil in it has been predestined to exist before the Universe was ever created.  It is Gods script, we are no more than play actors following our roles.  This seems like a pretty hopeless view of existance to me.

On the other hand, Free will tends to indicate that God cannot be all knowing for God cannot know an individuals action(If God did know an individual actions it is because God made it so--thus predestination pops up again.  But we are suppose the opposite.)  Thus God cannot be all knowing.  For if God is all knowing, then we have predestination--God knows because he made it so.


Maybe I am missing something here.  I guess I need to look at some Christian theological arguments to see what others say.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

amrchaos said:


> I think I kind of understand what the OP is getting at.
> 
> If we have free will, then God cannot be all knowing and all powerful because Free will will allow some randomness into the universe.  I.E.  God can't possibly know exactly what you will do in the future because your free will allows you to mak a different decisions, on the other hand if he did know then free will can not exist because you are following a script that god has written before hand(How else would God know what is to occur)
> 
> So there seems to be a contradiction here--either We have free will even from God, or we believe we have free will but God has determined everything ahead of time and we only are misleading ourselves into believing we are in control of our destiny.
> 
> Of course Free Will versus Predetermination has some similiar contradictions on their own.
> 
> For instance--If we live in a fully predetermined universe--God already knows which of us is going to Heaven and Hell before we are even created.  In fact, God has designed all of reality so therefore all good and evil in it has been predestined to exist before the Universe was ever created.  It is Gods script, we are no more than play actors following our roles.  This seems like a pretty hopeless view of existance to me.
> 
> On the other hand, Free will tends to indicate that God cannot be all knowing for God cannot know an individuals action(If God did know an individual actions it is because God made it so--thus predestination pops up again.  But we are suppose the opposite.)  Thus God cannot be all knowing.  For if God is all knowing, then we have predestination--God knows because he made it so.
> 
> 
> Maybe I am missing something here.  I guess I need to look at some Christian theological arguments to see what others say.



It is entirely possible to know everything that has happened without knowing everything that will happen.

Not that I actually believe that God is omniscient, that is a quality ascribed to God by Greek philosophy, not the Bible.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I kind of understand what the OP is getting at.
> 
> If we have free will, then God cannot be all knowing and all powerful because Free will will allow some randomness into the universe.  I.E.  God can't possibly know exactly what you will do in the future because your free will allows you to mak a different decisions, on the other hand if he did know then free will can not exist because you are following a script that god has written before hand(How else would God know what is to occur)
> 
> So there seems to be a contradiction here--either We have free will even from God, or we believe we have free will but God has determined everything ahead of time and we only are misleading ourselves into believing we are in control of our destiny.
> 
> Of course Free Will versus Predetermination has some similiar contradictions on their own.
> 
> For instance--If we live in a fully predetermined universe--God already knows which of us is going to Heaven and Hell before we are even created.  In fact, God has designed all of reality so therefore all good and evil in it has been predestined to exist before the Universe was ever created.  It is Gods script, we are no more than play actors following our roles.  This seems like a pretty hopeless view of existance to me.
> 
> On the other hand, Free will tends to indicate that God cannot be all knowing for God cannot know an individuals action(If God did know an individual actions it is because God made it so--thus predestination pops up again.  But we are suppose the opposite.)  Thus God cannot be all knowing.  For if God is all knowing, then we have predestination--God knows because he made it so.
> 
> 
> Maybe I am missing something here.  I guess I need to look at some Christian theological arguments to see what others say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is entirely possible to know everything that has happened without knowing everything that will happen.
> 
> Not that I actually believe that God is omniscient, that is a quality ascribed to God by Greek philosophy, not the Bible.
Click to expand...

so god is not all we make him out to be?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I kind of understand what the OP is getting at.
> 
> If we have free will, then God cannot be all knowing and all powerful because Free will will allow some randomness into the universe.  I.E.  God can't possibly know exactly what you will do in the future because your free will allows you to mak a different decisions, on the other hand if he did know then free will can not exist because you are following a script that god has written before hand(How else would God know what is to occur)
> 
> So there seems to be a contradiction here--either We have free will even from God, or we believe we have free will but God has determined everything ahead of time and we only are misleading ourselves into believing we are in control of our destiny.
> 
> Of course Free Will versus Predetermination has some similiar contradictions on their own.
> 
> For instance--If we live in a fully predetermined universe--God already knows which of us is going to Heaven and Hell before we are even created.  In fact, God has designed all of reality so therefore all good and evil in it has been predestined to exist before the Universe was ever created.  It is Gods script, we are no more than play actors following our roles.  This seems like a pretty hopeless view of existance to me.
> 
> On the other hand, Free will tends to indicate that God cannot be all knowing for God cannot know an individuals action(If God did know an individual actions it is because God made it so--thus predestination pops up again.  But we are suppose the opposite.)  Thus God cannot be all knowing.  For if God is all knowing, then we have predestination--God knows because he made it so.
> 
> 
> Maybe I am missing something here.  I guess I need to look at some Christian theological arguments to see what others say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is entirely possible to know everything that has happened without knowing everything that will happen.
> 
> Not that I actually believe that God is omniscient, that is a quality ascribed to God by Greek philosophy, not the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so god is not all we make him out to be?
Click to expand...


Is there a mouse in your pocket? Trying to build consensus with me again? It won't work.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is entirely possible to know everything that has happened without knowing everything that will happen.
> 
> Not that I actually believe that God is omniscient, that is a quality ascribed to God by Greek philosophy, not the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> so god is not all we make him out to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a mouse in your pocket? Trying to build consensus with me again? It won't work.
Click to expand...

why would you think that? I could give a shit.about what you wish god was...then again with  this sentence:" Not that I actually believe that God is omniscient,"- QW
you just tripped over your dick.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so god is not all we make him out to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a mouse in your pocket? Trying to build consensus with me again? It won't work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why would you think that? I could give a shit.about what you wish god was...then again with  this sentence:" Not that I actually believe that God is omniscient,"- QW
> you just tripped over your dick.
Click to expand...


If He is omniscient, and I am wrong, then He is actually more than I am ascribing to Him, not less. I didn't trip over anything, you tripped over your ego.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a mouse in your pocket? Trying to build consensus with me again? It won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> why would you think that? I could give a shit.about what you wish god was...then again with  this sentence:" Not that I actually believe that God is omniscient,"- QW
> you just tripped over your dick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If He is omniscient, and I am wrong, then He is actually more than I am ascribing to Him, not less. I didn't trip over anything, you tripped over your ego.
Click to expand...

false...he'd be what most people believe him to be...and you'd still be wrong. 
you're mistaking ego for directness..


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would you think that? I could give a shit.about what you wish god was...then again with  this sentence:" Not that I actually believe that God is omniscient,"- QW
> you just tripped over your dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If He is omniscient, and I am wrong, then He is actually more than I am ascribing to Him, not less. I didn't trip over anything, you tripped over your ego.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> false...he'd be what most people believe him to be...and you'd still be wrong.
> you're mistaking ego for directness..
Click to expand...


Most people don't think about it. Like you, they just believe whatever they were told last.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If He is omniscient, and I am wrong, then He is actually more than I am ascribing to Him, not less. I didn't trip over anything, you tripped over your ego.
> 
> 
> 
> false...he'd be what most people believe him to be...and you'd still be wrong.
> you're mistaking ego for directness..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people don't think about it. Like you, they just believe whatever they were told last.
Click to expand...

wrong again..since I don't" believe "


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false...he'd be what most people believe him to be...and you'd still be wrong.
> you're mistaking ego for directness..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't think about it. Like you, they just believe whatever they were told last.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again..since I don't" believe "
Click to expand...


You didn't come up with the BS you posted earlier, somebody told you about it.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't think about it. Like you, they just believe whatever they were told last.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again..since I don't" believe "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't come up with the BS you posted earlier, somebody told you about it.
Click to expand...

why yes I did, believe it or not...
besides what evidence do you have that I could not, other than your pretentiousness?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again..since I don't" believe "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't come up with the BS you posted earlier, somebody told you about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why yes I did, believe it or not...
> besides what evidence do you have that I could not, other than your pretentiousness?
Click to expand...


Because, if you came up with it yourself, you would have known that not all Protestants believe the exact same thing.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't come up with the BS you posted earlier, somebody told you about it.
> 
> 
> 
> why yes I did, believe it or not...
> besides what evidence do you have that I could not, other than your pretentiousness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, if you came up with it yourself, you would have known that not all Protestants believe the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

bahahahahaha! had to dig for that one did we?
still wrong though....all christians believe  there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of jesus, do they not?
that in itself is proof of belief in predestination...
protestants do what all christians do, they make god over in their own image..
last time I checked that was a big NO.NO.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> all christians believe  there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of jesus, do they not?



The answer to your question is no.

But you were told otherwise, so you believe it.


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all christians believe  there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of jesus, do they not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is no.
> 
> But you were told otherwise, so you believe it.
Click to expand...

wrong again....

Christian beliefs

Below is a list of some things that Christians believe:

1. God created all that is seen and unseen
Christians believe that God is the creator of all people, the world, the universe, and everything seen and unseen. This is based on various Bible passages, including the first chapter of the Bible's book of Genesis.

2. Jesus is the Son of God and is one with God
Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is one with God, and that he was sent here for our salvation. In John 10:30 (NIV translation), John the Apostle quotes Jesus as saying, "I and the Father are one."

3. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary
Christians believe that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit of God and born through the Virgin Mary. As explained in Matthew 1:18 (NIV), "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."

4. Jesus suffered and was crucified
Jesus suffered and died for our sins. Jesus was falsely accused of being an anti-government rebel and, as explained in Matthew 27:23-56, he was brought to Pontius Pilate to be executed through crucifixion. He was mocked, beaten, taunted and crucified by the Romans.

5. Jesus died and was buried
Jesus died after being crucified. He was buried in a tomb that was owned by a man named Joseph of Arimathea, who was a follower of Jesus. In Matthew 27:57-60 (NIV), the Bible says, "As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."

6. Jesus rose again (the Resurrection)
Jesus was resurrected, which means that he died and was brought back to life again. The resurrection of Jesus is described in various places throughout the Bible's New Testament, including in the New Testament book of John, chapter 20. As explained in the Bible, all people who die before Judgment Day will be resurrected. The people who believe in Jesus will be resurrected to eternal life in Heaven. Those who do not believe in Jesus will be condemned, eternally, by their own sins, as explained in John 3:18, and elsewhere.

7. Jesus ascended into Heaven
Jesus ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. This happened after Jesus was resurrected. We too can go to Heaven, through faith in Jesus Christ. As explained in Mark 16:19-20 (NIV): "After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."

8. Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead
Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. In Matthew 24:30 (NIV), Jesus is quoted as saying that he will return: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." Additional details are provided elsewhere, such as in the New Testament passages of John 5:28,29 and 2 Timothy 4:1-3. You can learn more about Jesus at the About-Jesus.org web site.

9. Anyone can have salvation
All people may receive salvation in the name of Jesus Christ. In Romans 10:12 (NIV), for example, it says: "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him".

10. People who repent of their sins will be forgiven
People are forgiven and saved if they confess their sins and confess their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. As explained in Romans 10:9-10 (NIV), "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

John 3:16 (NIV):
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."


----------



## Smilebong

The question that the OP asks is probably the most argued question among thinking Christians.

The hard part is when you are arguing with two different sets of preconceived notions of what is true and what is not.  If I use the Bible, unbelievers will argue that the Bible is not reliable.  The problem is that my view is that the Bible is totally reliable, and so it is almost impossible to discuss this.


----------



## daws101

Smilebong said:


> The question that the OP asks is probably the most argued question among thinking Christians.
> 
> The hard part is when you are arguing with two different sets of preconceived notions of what is true and what is not.  If I use the Bible, unbelievers will argue that the Bible is not reliable.  The problem is that my view is that the Bible is totally reliable, and so it is almost impossible to discuss this.


that does not answer the question.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> all christians believe  there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of jesus, do they not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is no.
> 
> But you were told otherwise, so you believe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again....
> 
> Christian beliefs
> 
> Below is a list of some things that Christians believe:
> 
> 1. God created all that is seen and unseen
> Christians believe that God is the creator of all people, the world, the universe, and everything seen and unseen. This is based on various Bible passages, including the first chapter of the Bible's book of Genesis.
> 
> 2. Jesus is the Son of God and is one with God
> Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is one with God, and that he was sent here for our salvation. In John 10:30 (NIV translation), John the Apostle quotes Jesus as saying, "I and the Father are one."
> 
> 3. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary
> Christians believe that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit of God and born through the Virgin Mary. As explained in Matthew 1:18 (NIV), "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
> 
> 4. Jesus suffered and was crucified
> Jesus suffered and died for our sins. Jesus was falsely accused of being an anti-government rebel and, as explained in Matthew 27:23-56, he was brought to Pontius Pilate to be executed through crucifixion. He was mocked, beaten, taunted and crucified by the Romans.
> 
> 5. Jesus died and was buried
> Jesus died after being crucified. He was buried in a tomb that was owned by a man named Joseph of Arimathea, who was a follower of Jesus. In Matthew 27:57-60 (NIV), the Bible says, "As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."
> 
> 6. Jesus rose again (the Resurrection)
> Jesus was resurrected, which means that he died and was brought back to life again. The resurrection of Jesus is described in various places throughout the Bible's New Testament, including in the New Testament book of John, chapter 20. As explained in the Bible, all people who die before Judgment Day will be resurrected. The people who believe in Jesus will be resurrected to eternal life in Heaven. Those who do not believe in Jesus will be condemned, eternally, by their own sins, as explained in John 3:18, and elsewhere.
> 
> 7. Jesus ascended into Heaven
> Jesus ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. This happened after Jesus was resurrected. We too can go to Heaven, through faith in Jesus Christ. As explained in Mark 16:19-20 (NIV): "After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."
> 
> 8. Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead
> Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. In Matthew 24:30 (NIV), Jesus is quoted as saying that he will return: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." Additional details are provided elsewhere, such as in the New Testament passages of John 5:28,29 and 2 Timothy 4:1-3. You can learn more about Jesus at the About-Jesus.org web site.
> 
> 9. Anyone can have salvation
> All people may receive salvation in the name of Jesus Christ. In Romans 10:12 (NIV), for example, it says: "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him".
> 
> 10. People who repent of their sins will be forgiven
> People are forgiven and saved if they confess their sins and confess their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. As explained in Romans 10:9-10 (NIV), "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
> 
> John 3:16 (NIV):
> "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Click to expand...


Look up amillennialism.


----------



## LittleNipper

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is no.
> 
> But you were told otherwise, so you believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again....
> 
> Christian beliefs
> 
> Below is a list of some things that Christians believe:
> 
> 1. God created all that is seen and unseen
> Christians believe that God is the creator of all people, the world, the universe, and everything seen and unseen. This is based on various Bible passages, including the first chapter of the Bible's book of Genesis.
> 
> 2. Jesus is the Son of God and is one with God
> Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is one with God, and that he was sent here for our salvation. In John 10:30 (NIV translation), John the Apostle quotes Jesus as saying, "I and the Father are one."
> 
> 3. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary
> Christians believe that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit of God and born through the Virgin Mary. As explained in Matthew 1:18 (NIV), "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
> 
> 4. Jesus suffered and was crucified
> Jesus suffered and died for our sins. Jesus was falsely accused of being an anti-government rebel and, as explained in Matthew 27:23-56, he was brought to Pontius Pilate to be executed through crucifixion. He was mocked, beaten, taunted and crucified by the Romans.
> 
> 5. Jesus died and was buried
> Jesus died after being crucified. He was buried in a tomb that was owned by a man named Joseph of Arimathea, who was a follower of Jesus. In Matthew 27:57-60 (NIV), the Bible says, "As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."
> 
> 6. Jesus rose again (the Resurrection)
> Jesus was resurrected, which means that he died and was brought back to life again. The resurrection of Jesus is described in various places throughout the Bible's New Testament, including in the New Testament book of John, chapter 20. As explained in the Bible, all people who die before Judgment Day will be resurrected. The people who believe in Jesus will be resurrected to eternal life in Heaven. Those who do not believe in Jesus will be condemned, eternally, by their own sins, as explained in John 3:18, and elsewhere.
> 
> 7. Jesus ascended into Heaven
> Jesus ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. This happened after Jesus was resurrected. We too can go to Heaven, through faith in Jesus Christ. As explained in Mark 16:19-20 (NIV): "After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."
> 
> 8. Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead
> Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. In Matthew 24:30 (NIV), Jesus is quoted as saying that he will return: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." Additional details are provided elsewhere, such as in the New Testament passages of John 5:28,29 and 2 Timothy 4:1-3. You can learn more about Jesus at the About-Jesus.org web site.
> 
> 9. Anyone can have salvation
> All people may receive salvation in the name of Jesus Christ. In Romans 10:12 (NIV), for example, it says: "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him".
> 
> 10. People who repent of their sins will be forgiven
> People are forgiven and saved if they confess their sins and confess their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. As explained in Romans 10:9-10 (NIV), "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
> 
> John 3:16 (NIV):
> "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look up amillennialism.
Click to expand...


The lion hasn't laid down with the lamb as of yet. This has not been fulfilled, but this will happen.


----------



## Smilebong

daws101 said:


> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question that the OP asks is probably the most argued question among thinking Christians.
> 
> The hard part is when you are arguing with two different sets of preconceived notions of what is true and what is not.  If I use the Bible, unbelievers will argue that the Bible is not reliable.  The problem is that my view is that the Bible is totally reliable, and so it is almost impossible to discuss this.
> 
> 
> 
> that does not answer the question.
Click to expand...


And you are the case in point. You don't want to discuss this. You want to flay Christianity from your anti-belief position.


----------



## pacer

Quantum Windbag said:


> Look up amillennialism.


Amillennialists do indeed believe in the Second Coming and the existence of a millennium but not in the literal sense.

The name &#8220;amillennialism&#8221; does not adequately characterize the eschatological system.  Etymologically, the word means &#8220;no millennium,&#8221; since the prefix &#8220;a&#8221; in Greek negates the word to which it is connected. 

Amillennialists, however, don't adhere to the non-existence of a millennium, but just that it 's not a literal 1,000 year period.

Amillennial view holds that the thousand years is a symbolic number, not a literal description; that the millennium has already begun and is identical with the current church age.  Amillennialism holds that while Christ's 1000 year reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature, at the end of the church age, Christ will return in final judgment and establish a permanent physical reign.

Amillennialism - ReligionFacts


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to your question is no.
> 
> But you were told otherwise, so you believe it.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again....
> 
> Christian beliefs
> 
> Below is a list of some things that Christians believe:
> 
> 1. God created all that is seen and unseen
> Christians believe that God is the creator of all people, the world, the universe, and everything seen and unseen. This is based on various Bible passages, including the first chapter of the Bible's book of Genesis.
> 
> 2. Jesus is the Son of God and is one with God
> Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is one with God, and that he was sent here for our salvation. In John 10:30 (NIV translation), John the Apostle quotes Jesus as saying, "I and the Father are one."
> 
> 3. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary
> Christians believe that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit of God and born through the Virgin Mary. As explained in Matthew 1:18 (NIV), "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
> 
> 4. Jesus suffered and was crucified
> Jesus suffered and died for our sins. Jesus was falsely accused of being an anti-government rebel and, as explained in Matthew 27:23-56, he was brought to Pontius Pilate to be executed through crucifixion. He was mocked, beaten, taunted and crucified by the Romans.
> 
> 5. Jesus died and was buried
> Jesus died after being crucified. He was buried in a tomb that was owned by a man named Joseph of Arimathea, who was a follower of Jesus. In Matthew 27:57-60 (NIV), the Bible says, "As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."
> 
> 6. Jesus rose again (the Resurrection)
> Jesus was resurrected, which means that he died and was brought back to life again. The resurrection of Jesus is described in various places throughout the Bible's New Testament, including in the New Testament book of John, chapter 20. As explained in the Bible, all people who die before Judgment Day will be resurrected. The people who believe in Jesus will be resurrected to eternal life in Heaven. Those who do not believe in Jesus will be condemned, eternally, by their own sins, as explained in John 3:18, and elsewhere.
> 
> 7. Jesus ascended into Heaven
> Jesus ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. This happened after Jesus was resurrected. We too can go to Heaven, through faith in Jesus Christ. As explained in Mark 16:19-20 (NIV): "After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."
> 
> 8. Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead
> Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. In Matthew 24:30 (NIV), Jesus is quoted as saying that he will return: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." Additional details are provided elsewhere, such as in the New Testament passages of John 5:28,29 and 2 Timothy 4:1-3. You can learn more about Jesus at the About-Jesus.org web site.
> 
> 9. Anyone can have salvation
> All people may receive salvation in the name of Jesus Christ. In Romans 10:12 (NIV), for example, it says: "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him".
> 
> 10. People who repent of their sins will be forgiven
> People are forgiven and saved if they confess their sins and confess their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. As explained in Romans 10:9-10 (NIV), "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
> 
> John 3:16 (NIV):
> "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look up amillennialism.
Click to expand...

The amillennial view comes from using one method of interpretation for unfulfilled prophecy and another method for non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy. Non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are interpreted literally or normally. But, according to the amillennialist, unfulfilled prophecy is to be interpreted spiritually, or non-literally. Those who hold to amillennialism believe that a spiritual reading of unfulfilled prophecy is the normal reading of the texts. This is called using a dual hermeneutic. (Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation.) The amillennialist assumes that most, or all, unfulfilled prophecy is written in symbolic, figurative, spiritual language. Therefore, the amillennialist will assign different meanings to those parts of Scripture instead of the normal, contextual meanings of those words.

Read more: What is amillennialism?


----------



## daws101

Smilebong said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smilebong said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question that the OP asks is probably the most argued question among thinking Christians.
> 
> The hard part is when you are arguing with two different sets of preconceived notions of what is true and what is not.  If I use the Bible, unbelievers will argue that the Bible is not reliable.  The problem is that my view is that the Bible is totally reliable, and so it is almost impossible to discuss this.
> 
> 
> 
> that does not answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are the case in point. You don't want to discuss this. You want to flay Christianity from your anti-belief position.
Click to expand...

wrong!


----------



## The Irish Ram

pacer said:


> Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?



God being omniscient has nothing to do with our free will.  Him knowing our choice doesn't determine our choice.  
Proof of that is Christ.  He left no man out when He paid for our sins on the cross.  If our future is predetermined Christ would have only paid for the sins of the ones God picked. 



> John 1:29 "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world .


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God being omniscient has nothing to do with our free will.  Him knowing our choice doesn't determine our choice.
> Proof of that is Christ.  He left no man out when He paid for our sins on the cross.  If our future is predetermined Christ would have only paid for the sins of the ones God picked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 1:29 "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

none of that matters if jesus is returning and there is to be a reckoning that is predestination


----------



## The Irish Ram

daws101 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God being omniscient has nothing to do with our free will.  Him knowing our choice doesn't determine our choice.
> Proof of that is Christ.  He left no man out when He paid for our sins on the cross.  If our future is predetermined Christ would have only paid for the sins of the ones God picked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 1:29 "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> none of that matters if jesus is returning and there is to be a reckoning that is predestination
Click to expand...


What kind of reckoning are you expecting upon His return??


----------



## pacer

If God orchestrates the choices we make in life and is the ultimate cause behind everything we do, then our choices have already been preordained, predetermined.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

pacer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up amillennialism.
> 
> 
> 
> Amillennialists do indeed believe in the Second Coming and the existence of a millennium but not in the literal sense.
> 
> The name amillennialism does not adequately characterize the eschatological system.  Etymologically, the word means no millennium, since the prefix a in Greek negates the word to which it is connected.
> 
> Amillennialists, however, don't adhere to the non-existence of a millennium, but just that it 's not a literal 1,000 year period.
> 
> Amillennial view holds that the thousand years is a symbolic number, not a literal description; that the millennium has already begun and is identical with the current church age.  Amillennialism holds that while Christ's 1000 year reign during the millennium is spiritual in nature, at the end of the church age, Christ will return in final judgment and establish a permanent physical reign.
> 
> Amillennialism - ReligionFacts
Click to expand...


Another guy that thinks reading a website makes him an expert.

Amillennialism has been around for longer than the modern premillineal, prewrath Rapture rubbish that is currently very popular. There are even Christians that believe that, until the church actually builds the government that Jesus needs to rule the world, and cleans up all the sin, that Jesus will not return.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again....
> 
> Christian beliefs
> 
> Below is a list of some things that Christians believe:
> 
> 1. God created all that is seen and unseen
> Christians believe that God is the creator of all people, the world, the universe, and everything seen and unseen. This is based on various Bible passages, including the first chapter of the Bible's book of Genesis.
> 
> 2. Jesus is the Son of God and is one with God
> Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he is one with God, and that he was sent here for our salvation. In John 10:30 (NIV translation), John the Apostle quotes Jesus as saying, "I and the Father are one."
> 
> 3. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary
> Christians believe that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit of God and born through the Virgin Mary. As explained in Matthew 1:18 (NIV), "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."
> 
> 4. Jesus suffered and was crucified
> Jesus suffered and died for our sins. Jesus was falsely accused of being an anti-government rebel and, as explained in Matthew 27:23-56, he was brought to Pontius Pilate to be executed through crucifixion. He was mocked, beaten, taunted and crucified by the Romans.
> 
> 5. Jesus died and was buried
> Jesus died after being crucified. He was buried in a tomb that was owned by a man named Joseph of Arimathea, who was a follower of Jesus. In Matthew 27:57-60 (NIV), the Bible says, "As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."
> 
> 6. Jesus rose again (the Resurrection)
> Jesus was resurrected, which means that he died and was brought back to life again. The resurrection of Jesus is described in various places throughout the Bible's New Testament, including in the New Testament book of John, chapter 20. As explained in the Bible, all people who die before Judgment Day will be resurrected. The people who believe in Jesus will be resurrected to eternal life in Heaven. Those who do not believe in Jesus will be condemned, eternally, by their own sins, as explained in John 3:18, and elsewhere.
> 
> 7. Jesus ascended into Heaven
> Jesus ascended into Heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. This happened after Jesus was resurrected. We too can go to Heaven, through faith in Jesus Christ. As explained in Mark 16:19-20 (NIV): "After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it."
> 
> 8. Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead
> Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. In Matthew 24:30 (NIV), Jesus is quoted as saying that he will return: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." Additional details are provided elsewhere, such as in the New Testament passages of John 5:28,29 and 2 Timothy 4:1-3. You can learn more about Jesus at the About-Jesus.org web site.
> 
> 9. Anyone can have salvation
> All people may receive salvation in the name of Jesus Christ. In Romans 10:12 (NIV), for example, it says: "For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him".
> 
> 10. People who repent of their sins will be forgiven
> People are forgiven and saved if they confess their sins and confess their belief in the resurrection of Jesus. As explained in Romans 10:9-10 (NIV), "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."
> 
> John 3:16 (NIV):
> "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up amillennialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The amillennial view comes from using one method of interpretation for unfulfilled prophecy and another method for non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy. Non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are interpreted literally or normally. But, according to the amillennialist, unfulfilled prophecy is to be interpreted spiritually, or non-literally. Those who hold to amillennialism believe that a spiritual reading of unfulfilled prophecy is the normal reading of the texts. This is called using a dual hermeneutic. (Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation.) The amillennialist assumes that most, or all, unfulfilled prophecy is written in symbolic, figurative, spiritual language. Therefore, the amillennialist will assign different meanings to those parts of Scripture instead of the normal, contextual meanings of those words.
> 
> Read more: What is amillennialism?
Click to expand...


No it doesn't, but thanks for not admitting you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## pacer

Quantum Windbag said:


> Another guy that thinks reading a website makes him an expert.
> 
> Amillennialism has been around for longer than the modern premillineal, prewrath Rapture rubbish that is currently very popular. There are even Christians that believe that, until the church actually builds the government that Jesus needs to rule the world, and cleans up all the sin, that Jesus will not return.


Please give us the source of your information.  In the meantime, here are several other sources you may want to check out.

Theopedia:  http://www.theopedia.com/Amillennialism

New World Encyclopedia:  

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Amillennialism]Amillennialism - New World Encyclopedia[/COLOR]

Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism]Amillennialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/COLOR]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

pacer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another guy that thinks reading a website makes him an expert.
> 
> Amillennialism has been around for longer than the modern premillineal, prewrath Rapture rubbish that is currently very popular. There are even Christians that believe that, until the church actually builds the government that Jesus needs to rule the world, and cleans up all the sin, that Jesus will not return.
> 
> 
> 
> Please give us the source of your information.  In the meantime, here are several other sources you may want to check out.
> 
> Theopedia:  http://www.theopedia.com/Amillennialism
> 
> New World Encyclopedia:
> 
> http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Amillennialism]Amillennialism - New World Encyclopedia[/COLOR]
> 
> Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism]Amillennialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/COLOR]
Click to expand...


My source is 20 years of studying theology in general and eschatology in particular. You can throw all the websites you like around, it won't change the fact that there is a lot of disagreement about everything.


----------



## pacer

Quantum Windbag said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another guy that thinks reading a website makes him an expert.
> 
> Amillennialism has been around for longer than the modern premillineal, prewrath Rapture rubbish that is currently very popular. There are even Christians that believe that, until the church actually builds the government that Jesus needs to rule the world, and cleans up all the sin, that Jesus will not return.
> 
> 
> 
> Please give us the source of your information.  In the meantime, here are several other sources you may want to check out.
> 
> Theopedia:  http://www.theopedia.com/Amillennialism
> 
> New World Encyclopedia:
> 
> http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Amillennialism]Amillennialism - New World Encyclopedia[/COLOR]
> 
> Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism]Amillennialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/COLOR]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My source is 20 years of studying theology in general and eschatology in particular. You can throw all the websites you like around, it won't change the fact that there is a lot of disagreement about everything.
Click to expand...

You cannot produce one site that agrees with your definition.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

pacer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please give us the source of your information.  In the meantime, here are several other sources you may want to check out.
> 
> Theopedia:  http://www.theopedia.com/Amillennialism
> 
> New World Encyclopedia:
> 
> http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Amillennialism]Amillennialism - New World Encyclopedia[/COLOR]
> 
> Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism]Amillennialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My source is 20 years of studying theology in general and eschatology in particular. You can throw all the websites you like around, it won't change the fact that there is a lot of disagreement about everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You cannot produce one site that agrees with your definition.
Click to expand...


I didn't give a definition, I made a statement. I don't even know which part of my statement you take exception to, but my guess is it has to do with my comment about kingdom theology and dominionism, feel free to look it up.


----------



## pacer

Quantum Windbag said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> My source is 20 years of studying theology in general and eschatology in particular. You can throw all the websites you like around, it won't change the fact that there is a lot of disagreement about everything.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot produce one site that agrees with your definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't give a definition, I made a statement. I don't even know which part of my statement you take exception to, but my guess is it has to do with my comment about kingdom theology and dominionism, feel free to look it up.
Click to expand...

When asked, _&#8220;all Christians believe there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of Jesus, do they not&#8221;_, you replied, &#8220;The answer to your question is no.&#8221;

You were wrong.   Feel free to look it up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

pacer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot produce one site that agrees with your definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't give a definition, I made a statement. I don't even know which part of my statement you take exception to, but my guess is it has to do with my comment about kingdom theology and dominionism, feel free to look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When asked, _all Christians believe there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of Jesus, do they not_, you replied, The answer to your question is no.
> 
> You were wrong.   Feel free to look it up.
Click to expand...


They don't. If they did they wouldn't be telling people that being homosexual is fine because God made them that way, would they?


----------



## pacer

Quantum Windbag said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't give a definition, I made a statement. I don't even know which part of my statement you take exception to, but my guess is it has to do with my comment about kingdom theology and dominionism, feel free to look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> When asked, _all Christians believe there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of Jesus, do they not_, you replied, The answer to your question is no.
> 
> You were wrong.   Feel free to look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

pacer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> When asked, _all Christians believe there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of Jesus, do they not_, you replied, The answer to your question is no.
> 
> You were wrong.   Feel free to look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong.
Click to expand...


Feel free to prove that, out of the over 1 billion Christians that are currently alive, that not a single one believes that there will be no judgement.


----------



## pacer

Quantum Windbag said:


> Feel free to prove that, out of the over 1 billion Christians that are currently alive, that not a single one believes that there will be no judgement.


Correct.  We're in agreement that all Christians do indeed believe "there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of Jesus."  Thank you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

pacer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to prove that, out of the over 1 billion Christians that are currently alive, that not a single one believes that there will be no judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  We're in agreement that all Christians do indeed believe "there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of Jesus."  Thank you.
Click to expand...


If we are in agreement then you must have just lied.


----------



## Vox

pacer said:


> Christianity teaches God gave us free will and yet at the same time it states God is omniscient/omnipotent.  If our destiny or future has been predetermined by God, how can we have free will?



not all Christian denominations recognize free will. it is a fundamental divide between many of them


----------



## Vox

Daktoria said:


> Look.  Universal reconciliation recognizes that all souls will be saved because of the grace of God.
> 
> A mortal sin kills the soul because grace has been destroyed.  No grace means no salvation because there's nothing to be saved.
> 
> *Catholics recognize that everyone's endowed with grace, but mortal sins can still be committed such that grace is lost.  They cannot be repented *since there is no grace available to repent with which should be common sense anyway.  If people could repent despite committing mortal sins, then what's the point?  It'd be like saying you could punch someone in the face as long as you say you're sorry after.



not true. that is NOT the Catholic doctrinal belief.


----------



## Vox

Quantum Windbag said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't repent a mortal sin.  What are you talking about?
> 
> Likewise, the point of a mortal sin is it destroys the grace behind which universal reconciliation is justified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, you want me to simultaneously believe that Catholics believe in universal reconciliation and that it is impossible to repent mortal sins? Then, on top of those mutually contradictory positions, you want me to believe you know what you are talking about?
Click to expand...


Catholics DO NOT  believe in universal reconciliation. that is more nrw-ageish belief.


----------



## pacer

Vox said:


> not all Christian denominations recognize free will. it is a fundamental divide between many of them


If they do not recognize free will, who do they hold responsible for their actions?


----------



## pacer

Daktoria said:


> Catholics recognize that everyone's endowed with grace, but mortal sins can still be committed such that grace is lost.  They cannot be repented since there is no grace available to repent with which should be common sense anyway.  If people could repent despite committing mortal sins, then what's the point?  It'd be like saying you could punch someone in the face as long as you say you're sorry after.


Mortal sin can be repented.

Is it possible for a person with a mortal sin still on his soul to die and go to heaven? | Catholic Answers


----------



## Vox

pacer said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> not all Christian denominations recognize free will. it is a fundamental divide between many of them
> 
> 
> 
> If they do not recognize free will, who do they hold responsible for their actions?
Click to expand...


i have no idea. i belong to the faith which considers free will one of the fundamental characteristics of the human being


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Vox said:


> Daktoria said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look.  Universal reconciliation recognizes that all souls will be saved because of the grace of God.
> 
> A mortal sin kills the soul because grace has been destroyed.  No grace means no salvation because there's nothing to be saved.
> 
> *Catholics recognize that everyone's endowed with grace, but mortal sins can still be committed such that grace is lost.  They cannot be repented *since there is no grace available to repent with which should be common sense anyway.  If people could repent despite committing mortal sins, then what's the point?  It'd be like saying you could punch someone in the face as long as you say you're sorry after.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not true. that is NOT the Catholic doctrinal belief.
Click to expand...


I already tried to tell him that, and even linked to a site that proved it. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of experts that have all the answers already.


----------



## pacer

Quantum Windbag said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to prove that, out of the over 1 billion Christians that are currently alive, that not a single one believes that there will be no judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  We're in agreement that all Christians do indeed believe "there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of Jesus."  Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are in agreement then you must have just lied.
Click to expand...

Feel free to look it up.


----------



## pacer

Correction, I misinterpreted your statement, Quantum.  There may be those who do not believe in a final reckoning or divine punishment; however, they would be in the minority.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

pacer said:


> Correction, I misinterpreted your statement, Quantum.  There may be those who do not believe in a final reckoning or divine punishment; however, they would be in the minority.



Never said they were anything but a minority, did I? Just that they exist.


----------



## The Irish Ram

pacer said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot produce one site that agrees with your definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't give a definition, I made a statement. I don't even know which part of my statement you take exception to, but my guess is it has to do with my comment about kingdom theology and dominionism, feel free to look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When asked, _all Christians believe there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of Jesus, do they not_, you replied, The answer to your question is no.
> 
> You were wrong.   Feel free to look it up.
Click to expand...


Quantum is right.  No need to look it up.
There is* no condemnation* for a person that accepts the gift of salvation. None. zero. zip. Impossible.
To believe there is, is to call Jesus inadequate, and God a liar. 

If God* remembers your sins no more* what do you think He is going to judge you on?
Did Jesus forget to pay for some of your sins while hanging on the cross?


----------



## daws101

The Irish Ram said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> God being omniscient has nothing to do with our free will.  Him knowing our choice doesn't determine our choice.
> Proof of that is Christ.  He left no man out when He paid for our sins on the cross.  If our future is predetermined Christ would have only paid for the sins of the ones God picked.
> 
> 
> 
> none of that matters if jesus is returning and there is to be a reckoning that is predestination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of reckoning are you expecting upon His return??
Click to expand...

none and no return either...


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look up amillennialism.
> 
> 
> 
> The amillennial view comes from using one method of interpretation for unfulfilled prophecy and another method for non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy. Non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are interpreted literally or normally. But, according to the amillennialist, unfulfilled prophecy is to be interpreted spiritually, or non-literally. Those who hold to amillennialism believe that a spiritual reading of unfulfilled prophecy is the normal reading of the texts. This is called using a dual hermeneutic. (Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation.) The amillennialist assumes that most, or all, unfulfilled prophecy is written in symbolic, figurative, spiritual language. Therefore, the amillennialist will assign different meanings to those parts of Scripture instead of the normal, contextual meanings of those words.
> 
> Read more: What is amillennialism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, but thanks for not admitting you don't know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

as always you just wish I didn't....


----------



## pacer

The Irish Ram said:


> pacer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't give a definition, I made a statement. I don't even know which part of my statement you take exception to, but my guess is it has to do with my comment about kingdom theology and dominionism, feel free to look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> When asked, _&#8220;all Christians believe there will be some sort of reckoning and the return of Jesus, do they not&#8221;_, you replied, &#8220;The answer to your question is no.&#8221;
> 
> You were wrong.   Feel free to look it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quantum is right.  No need to look it up.
> There is* no condemnation* for a person that accepts the gift of salvation. None. zero. zip. Impossible.
Click to expand...

Quantum was not talking about those who accept the gift of salvation.  He was suggesting some Christians do not believe in a day of reckoning and the second coming.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

daws101 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The amillennial view comes from using one method of interpretation for unfulfilled prophecy and another method for non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy. Non-prophetic Scripture and fulfilled prophecy are interpreted literally or normally. But, according to the amillennialist, unfulfilled prophecy is to be interpreted spiritually, or non-literally. Those who hold to amillennialism believe that a spiritual reading of unfulfilled prophecy is the normal reading of the texts. This is called using a dual hermeneutic. (Hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation.) The amillennialist assumes that most, or all, unfulfilled prophecy is written in symbolic, figurative, spiritual language. Therefore, the amillennialist will assign different meanings to those parts of Scripture instead of the normal, contextual meanings of those words.
> 
> Read more: What is amillennialism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, but thanks for not admitting you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as always you just wish I didn't....
Click to expand...


If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have used that site.

Monergism :: Amillennialism


----------



## daws101

Quantum Windbag said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't, but thanks for not admitting you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> as always you just wish I didn't....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you wouldn't have used that site.
> 
> Monergism :: Amillennialism
Click to expand...

subjective....


----------

