Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

[G.T.]

I was referring to eternal damnation, in my post. Perhaps you are straw-manning again.

Saying to do x or else y is an ultimatum. When one of the choices, x or y, is so grossly unreasonable that its crashing through the bullet-proof glass of being an actual "choice," I question one's understanding of "free" but to each their own opinion.

I know you were referring to that.

It isn’t about that.

It isn’t about the destination. It has never been about the destination.

It is and has always been about the journey. That’s why it was referred to as the way.

I didnt inquire about your 1 man opinion regarding what you think its about.

I was obviously posing a question to folks who believe in eternal damnation at the same time as they believe in free will.

If thats not you, my comment doesnt pertain to you.

But if you insist on making that argument.

How is it any different than a law against murder or any other crime?

If you break the law you will go to jail. So is it free will to not break the law?

Clearly it is because people still do break the law. If they were not free to do so no one would break the law.

Now if you ask the question is it virtuous to be made to be virtuous it is clearly not. But since no one is being forced to be virtuous they still have a choice in their behavior.

Are there consequences? Sure. That’s life.

I dont have arguments with preachers that I find fulla shit, Ding.

I told ya that. Many times, too. Youre clingy and yoire not introspective enough for humility. Lack of humility is nasty.

Free will is subjective, that's made obvious by looking at slavery.

The slaves had a choice to run at night, or while working in a field, but under the threat of durress, many wouldnt run because they feared hanging or being shot.

You can call having that choice free will.

I dont.

Same with threat of eternal damnation. That elevates the prospect, to me, of not being able to practically call that a choice.

To each their own opinion.

Unless you are physically restrained from doing something, you have free will to do it.

When a man throws himself on a grenade to spare the lives of others he exercised free will. Yet he still suffered the consequences of death.

When a man chooses to murder another man for whatever reason he exercised free will. Yet he suffered the consequences of prison and/or executions.

It is only not free will when you are forcefully prevented from exercising your intentions.

Yes, Ding, I understand we have differing concepts of what we consider free will.

Being threatened to do something, or else.... and calling it freedom is a canard, to me.

Thats an opinion.

 

[ding]

I know you were referring to that.

It isn’t about that.

It isn’t about the destination. It has never been about the destination.

It is and has always been about the journey. That’s why it was referred to as the way.

I didnt inquire about your 1 man opinion regarding what you think its about.

I was obviously posing a question to folks who believe in eternal damnation at the same time as they believe in free will.

If thats not you, my comment doesnt pertain to you.

But if you insist on making that argument.

How is it any different than a law against murder or any other crime?

If you break the law you will go to jail. So is it free will to not break the law?

Clearly it is because people still do break the law. If they were not free to do so no one would break the law.

Now if you ask the question is it virtuous to be made to be virtuous it is clearly not. But since no one is being forced to be virtuous they still have a choice in their behavior.

Are there consequences? Sure. That’s life.

I dont have arguments with preachers that I find fulla shit, Ding.

I told ya that. Many times, too. Youre clingy and yoire not introspective enough for humility. Lack of humility is nasty.

Free will is subjective, that's made obvious by looking at slavery.

The slaves had a choice to run at night, or while working in a field, but under the threat of durress, many wouldnt run because they feared hanging or being shot.

You can call having that choice free will.

I dont.

Same with threat of eternal damnation. That elevates the prospect, to me, of not being able to practically call that a choice.

To each their own opinion.

Unless you are physically restrained from doing something, you have free will to do it.

When a man throws himself on a grenade to spare the lives of others he exercised free will. Yet he still suffered the consequences of death.

When a man chooses to murder another man for whatever reason he exercised free will. Yet he suffered the consequences of prison and/or executions.

It is only not free will when you are forcefully prevented from exercising your intentions.

Yes, Ding, I understand we have differing concepts of what we consider free will.

Being threatened to do something, or else.... and calling it freedom is a canard, to me.

Thats an opinion.

It’s no different than any other transaction.

There is an associated cost. To argue that the cost for the transaction is too high does not negate the offer or the decision to willingly purchase or reject it. It’s still a choice.

Even if someone puts a gun to your head it is still a choice what you do. You can argue you have no choice but what you are really arguing is it isn’t a choice you are willing to pay for.

 

[ding]

Given that we don’t act like angels, I don’t think the threat of eternal damnation holds much sway.

 

[G.T.]

I didnt inquire about your 1 man opinion regarding what you think its about.

I was obviously posing a question to folks who believe in eternal damnation at the same time as they believe in free will.

If thats not you, my comment doesnt pertain to you.

But if you insist on making that argument.

How is it any different than a law against murder or any other crime?

If you break the law you will go to jail. So is it free will to not break the law?

Clearly it is because people still do break the law. If they were not free to do so no one would break the law.

Now if you ask the question is it virtuous to be made to be virtuous it is clearly not. But since no one is being forced to be virtuous they still have a choice in their behavior.

Are there consequences? Sure. That’s life.

I dont have arguments with preachers that I find fulla shit, Ding.

I told ya that. Many times, too. Youre clingy and yoire not introspective enough for humility. Lack of humility is nasty.

Free will is subjective, that's made obvious by looking at slavery.

The slaves had a choice to run at night, or while working in a field, but under the threat of durress, many wouldnt run because they feared hanging or being shot.

You can call having that choice free will.

I dont.

Same with threat of eternal damnation. That elevates the prospect, to me, of not being able to practically call that a choice.

To each their own opinion.

Unless you are physically restrained from doing something, you have free will to do it.

When a man throws himself on a grenade to spare the lives of others he exercised free will. Yet he still suffered the consequences of death.

When a man chooses to murder another man for whatever reason he exercised free will. Yet he suffered the consequences of prison and/or executions.

It is only not free will when you are forcefully prevented from exercising your intentions.

Yes, Ding, I understand we have differing concepts of what we consider free will.

Being threatened to do something, or else.... and calling it freedom is a canard, to me.

Thats an opinion.

It’s no different than any other transaction.

There is an associated cost. To argue that the cost for the transaction is too high does not negate the offer or the decision to willingly purchase or reject it. It’s still a choice.

Even if someone puts a gun to your head it is still a choice what you do. You can argue you have no choice but what you are really arguing is it isn’t a choice you are willing to pay for.

And you're arguing that coercion isn't a factor. I def. don't opine the same regarding free will.

 

[G.T.]

Given that we don’t act like angels, I don’t think the threat of eternal damnation holds much sway.

I don't think that's a more cogent inference than assuming that "we dont act like angels" because we have a bunch of doubt as to whether hell is bullshit.

 

[ding]

But if you insist on making that argument.

How is it any different than a law against murder or any other crime?

If you break the law you will go to jail. So is it free will to not break the law?

Clearly it is because people still do break the law. If they were not free to do so no one would break the law.

Now if you ask the question is it virtuous to be made to be virtuous it is clearly not. But since no one is being forced to be virtuous they still have a choice in their behavior.

Are there consequences? Sure. That’s life.

I dont have arguments with preachers that I find fulla shit, Ding.

I told ya that. Many times, too. Youre clingy and yoire not introspective enough for humility. Lack of humility is nasty.

Free will is subjective, that's made obvious by looking at slavery.

The slaves had a choice to run at night, or while working in a field, but under the threat of durress, many wouldnt run because they feared hanging or being shot.

You can call having that choice free will.

I dont.

Same with threat of eternal damnation. That elevates the prospect, to me, of not being able to practically call that a choice.

To each their own opinion.

Unless you are physically restrained from doing something, you have free will to do it.

When a man throws himself on a grenade to spare the lives of others he exercised free will. Yet he still suffered the consequences of death.

When a man chooses to murder another man for whatever reason he exercised free will. Yet he suffered the consequences of prison and/or executions.

It is only not free will when you are forcefully prevented from exercising your intentions.

Yes, Ding, I understand we have differing concepts of what we consider free will.

Being threatened to do something, or else.... and calling it freedom is a canard, to me.

Thats an opinion.

It’s no different than any other transaction.

There is an associated cost. To argue that the cost for the transaction is too high does not negate the offer or the decision to willingly purchase or reject it. It’s still a choice.

Even if someone puts a gun to your head it is still a choice what you do. You can argue you have no choice but what you are really arguing is it isn’t a choice you are willing to pay for.

And you're arguing that coercion isn't a factor. I def. don't opine the same regarding free will.

Has God put a gun to your head, GT?

Or are you taking it on faith that he has threatened you with eternal damnation?

I am arguing that if someone put a gun to my head and ordered me to do something I did not want to do I can tell them to fuck off. So even if I am coerced I still have free will to do what I want to do. Do you disagree?

 

[G.T.]

I dont have arguments with preachers that I find fulla shit, Ding.

I told ya that. Many times, too. Youre clingy and yoire not introspective enough for humility. Lack of humility is nasty.

Free will is subjective, that's made obvious by looking at slavery.

The slaves had a choice to run at night, or while working in a field, but under the threat of durress, many wouldnt run because they feared hanging or being shot.

You can call having that choice free will.

I dont.

Same with threat of eternal damnation. That elevates the prospect, to me, of not being able to practically call that a choice.

To each their own opinion.

Unless you are physically restrained from doing something, you have free will to do it.

When a man throws himself on a grenade to spare the lives of others he exercised free will. Yet he still suffered the consequences of death.

When a man chooses to murder another man for whatever reason he exercised free will. Yet he suffered the consequences of prison and/or executions.

It is only not free will when you are forcefully prevented from exercising your intentions.

Yes, Ding, I understand we have differing concepts of what we consider free will.

Being threatened to do something, or else.... and calling it freedom is a canard, to me.

Thats an opinion.

It’s no different than any other transaction.

There is an associated cost. To argue that the cost for the transaction is too high does not negate the offer or the decision to willingly purchase or reject it. It’s still a choice.

Even if someone puts a gun to your head it is still a choice what you do. You can argue you have no choice but what you are really arguing is it isn’t a choice you are willing to pay for.

And you're arguing that coercion isn't a factor. I def. don't opine the same regarding free will.

Has God put a gun to your head, GT?

Or are you taking it on faith that he has threatened you with eternal damnation?

I am arguing that if someone put a gun to my head and ordered me to do something I did not want to do I can tell them to fuck off. So even if I am coerced I still have free will to do what I want to do. Do you disagree?

Yes, I have a basic instinct to want to survive and have an aversion to pain. Threatening me with either, by force if I choose against your wishes, is giving an ultimatum between what YOU want (worship me or go to hell), and what I DONT WANT(neither).

Also, God isnt putting anything to me whatsoever because I dont believe in it.

 

[ding]

Given that we don’t act like angels, I don’t think the threat of eternal damnation holds much sway.

I don't think that's a more cogent inference than assuming that "we dont act like angels" because we have a bunch of doubt as to whether hell is bullshit.

I don’t disagree that those who profess in believing in a higher power do not act like they believe in a higher power. Myself included.

I dispute your assumption that we are threatened with burning in hell if we don’t behave.

 

[G.T.]

Given that we don’t act like angels, I don’t think the threat of eternal damnation holds much sway.

I don't think that's a more cogent inference than assuming that "we dont act like angels" because we have a bunch of doubt as to whether hell is bullshit.

I don’t disagree that those who profess in believing in a higher power do not act like they believe in a higher power. Myself included.

I dispute your assumption that we are threatened with burning in hell if we don’t behave.

Thats not my assumption, lots of folks actually believe in hell and eternal damnation. Calling that MY assumption is just a false assertion.

My assumption is that its fake.

 

[ding]

Unless you are physically restrained from doing something, you have free will to do it.

When a man throws himself on a grenade to spare the lives of others he exercised free will. Yet he still suffered the consequences of death.

When a man chooses to murder another man for whatever reason he exercised free will. Yet he suffered the consequences of prison and/or executions.

It is only not free will when you are forcefully prevented from exercising your intentions.

Yes, Ding, I understand we have differing concepts of what we consider free will.

Being threatened to do something, or else.... and calling it freedom is a canard, to me.

Thats an opinion.

It’s no different than any other transaction.

There is an associated cost. To argue that the cost for the transaction is too high does not negate the offer or the decision to willingly purchase or reject it. It’s still a choice.

Even if someone puts a gun to your head it is still a choice what you do. You can argue you have no choice but what you are really arguing is it isn’t a choice you are willing to pay for.

And you're arguing that coercion isn't a factor. I def. don't opine the same regarding free will.

Has God put a gun to your head, GT?

Or are you taking it on faith that he has threatened you with eternal damnation?

I am arguing that if someone put a gun to my head and ordered me to do something I did not want to do I can tell them to fuck off. So even if I am coerced I still have free will to do what I want to do. Do you disagree?

Yes, I have a basic instinct to want to survive and have an aversion to pain. Threatening me with either, by force if I choose against your wishes, is giving an ultimatum between what YOU want (worship me or go to hell), and what I DONT WANT(neither).

Also, God isnt putting anything to me whatsoever because I dont believe in it.

So you are saying that if someone put a gun to your head and ordered you to kill someone else, you would have no choice in killing them?

 

[ding]

Given that we don’t act like angels, I don’t think the threat of eternal damnation holds much sway.

I don't think that's a more cogent inference than assuming that "we dont act like angels" because we have a bunch of doubt as to whether hell is bullshit.

I don’t disagree that those who profess in believing in a higher power do not act like they believe in a higher power. Myself included.

I dispute your assumption that we are threatened with burning in hell if we don’t behave.

Thats not my assumption, lots of folks actually believe in hell and eternal damnation. Calling that MY assumption is just a false assertion.

My assumption is that its fake.

That is exactly the argument you are making.

Whether you believe it or not does not matter because that is the argument you are making and the argument I am responding to.

I started this conversation by telling you it was a straw man argument.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, Ding, I understand we have differing concepts of what we consider free will.

Being threatened to do something, or else.... and calling it freedom is a canard, to me.

Thats an opinion.

It’s no different than any other transaction.

There is an associated cost. To argue that the cost for the transaction is too high does not negate the offer or the decision to willingly purchase or reject it. It’s still a choice.

Even if someone puts a gun to your head it is still a choice what you do. You can argue you have no choice but what you are really arguing is it isn’t a choice you are willing to pay for.

And you're arguing that coercion isn't a factor. I def. don't opine the same regarding free will.

Has God put a gun to your head, GT?

Or are you taking it on faith that he has threatened you with eternal damnation?

I am arguing that if someone put a gun to my head and ordered me to do something I did not want to do I can tell them to fuck off. So even if I am coerced I still have free will to do what I want to do. Do you disagree?

Yes, I have a basic instinct to want to survive and have an aversion to pain. Threatening me with either, by force if I choose against your wishes, is giving an ultimatum between what YOU want (worship me or go to hell), and what I DONT WANT(neither).

Also, God isnt putting anything to me whatsoever because I dont believe in it.

So you are saying that if someone put a gun to your head and ordered you to kill someone else, you would have no choice in killing them?

No, Im saying that choice and free will are different, conceptually, because there exists such a thing as coercion which alters the balance of freedom of choice in the favor of the assailant by use of a threat.

 

[G.T.]

Given that we don’t act like angels, I don’t think the threat of eternal damnation holds much sway.

I don't think that's a more cogent inference than assuming that "we dont act like angels" because we have a bunch of doubt as to whether hell is bullshit.

I don’t disagree that those who profess in believing in a higher power do not act like they believe in a higher power. Myself included.

I dispute your assumption that we are threatened with burning in hell if we don’t behave.

Thats not my assumption, lots of folks actually believe in hell and eternal damnation. Calling that MY assumption is just a false assertion.

My assumption is that its fake.

That is exactly the argument you are making.

Whether you believe it or not does not matter because that is the argument you are making and the argument I am responding to.

I started this conversation by telling you it was a straw man argument.

If you are asserting that people dont believe in hell, I dont have anything left to say to that sort of dissonance. Its not an assumption, they say it out loud and theres also polls.

 

[ding]

It’s no different than any other transaction.

There is an associated cost. To argue that the cost for the transaction is too high does not negate the offer or the decision to willingly purchase or reject it. It’s still a choice.

Even if someone puts a gun to your head it is still a choice what you do. You can argue you have no choice but what you are really arguing is it isn’t a choice you are willing to pay for.

And you're arguing that coercion isn't a factor. I def. don't opine the same regarding free will.

Has God put a gun to your head, GT?

Or are you taking it on faith that he has threatened you with eternal damnation?

I am arguing that if someone put a gun to my head and ordered me to do something I did not want to do I can tell them to fuck off. So even if I am coerced I still have free will to do what I want to do. Do you disagree?

Yes, I have a basic instinct to want to survive and have an aversion to pain. Threatening me with either, by force if I choose against your wishes, is giving an ultimatum between what YOU want (worship me or go to hell), and what I DONT WANT(neither).

Also, God isnt putting anything to me whatsoever because I dont believe in it.

So you are saying that if someone put a gun to your head and ordered you to kill someone else, you would have no choice in killing them?

No, Im saying that choice and free will are different, conceptually, because there exists such a thing as coercion which alters the balance of freedom of choice in the favor of the assailant by use of a threat.

Such that you would not have a choice in killing them because you were coerced?

 

[ding]

Given that we don’t act like angels, I don’t think the threat of eternal damnation holds much sway.

I don't think that's a more cogent inference than assuming that "we dont act like angels" because we have a bunch of doubt as to whether hell is bullshit.

I don’t disagree that those who profess in believing in a higher power do not act like they believe in a higher power. Myself included.

I dispute your assumption that we are threatened with burning in hell if we don’t behave.

Thats not my assumption, lots of folks actually believe in hell and eternal damnation. Calling that MY assumption is just a false assertion.

My assumption is that its fake.

That is exactly the argument you are making.

Whether you believe it or not does not matter because that is the argument you are making and the argument I am responding to.

I started this conversation by telling you it was a straw man argument.

If you are asserting that people dont believe in hell, I dont have anything left to say to that sort of dissonance. Its not an assumption, they say it out loud and theres also polls.

If you are going to discuss hell, you need to define what hell is, GT.

Hell is nothing more or less than eternal separation from God. And you get to choose that.

 

[G.T.]

And you're arguing that coercion isn't a factor. I def. don't opine the same regarding free will.

Has God put a gun to your head, GT?

Or are you taking it on faith that he has threatened you with eternal damnation?

I am arguing that if someone put a gun to my head and ordered me to do something I did not want to do I can tell them to fuck off. So even if I am coerced I still have free will to do what I want to do. Do you disagree?

Yes, I have a basic instinct to want to survive and have an aversion to pain. Threatening me with either, by force if I choose against your wishes, is giving an ultimatum between what YOU want (worship me or go to hell), and what I DONT WANT(neither).

Also, God isnt putting anything to me whatsoever because I dont believe in it.

So you are saying that if someone put a gun to your head and ordered you to kill someone else, you would have no choice in killing them?

No, Im saying that choice and free will are different, conceptually, because there exists such a thing as coercion which alters the balance of freedom of choice in the favor of the assailant by use of a threat.

Such that you would not have a choice in killing them because you were coerced?

Thats exactly where we differ in what we consider free will.

You are making it directly akin to having a choice.

Im introducing the fact that an outside force using a threat to make you choose a certain way that theyd like, or else, is a choice but is no longer free will.

 

[G.T.]

I don't think that's a more cogent inference than assuming that "we dont act like angels" because we have a bunch of doubt as to whether hell is bullshit.

I don’t disagree that those who profess in believing in a higher power do not act like they believe in a higher power. Myself included.

I dispute your assumption that we are threatened with burning in hell if we don’t behave.

Thats not my assumption, lots of folks actually believe in hell and eternal damnation. Calling that MY assumption is just a false assertion.

My assumption is that its fake.

That is exactly the argument you are making.

Whether you believe it or not does not matter because that is the argument you are making and the argument I am responding to.

I started this conversation by telling you it was a straw man argument.

If you are asserting that people dont believe in hell, I dont have anything left to say to that sort of dissonance. Its not an assumption, they say it out loud and theres also polls.

If you are going to discuss hell, you need to define what hell is, GT.

Hell is nothing more or less than eternal separation from God. And you get to choose that.

You opinion on what hell is is irrelevant to me.

There exists humans not named ding that believe that hell is eternal damnation and torture.

My commentary was for them.

Ypu butted in, and are proclaiming they dont exist and stating its merely an assumption of mine that they do, despite them being on video since video was invented and also answering polls that they do believe in it, all to falsely call something a strawman where that doesnt even pertain because they actually DO exist.

Cuz youre an obsessive compulsive arguer.

 

[ding]

Has God put a gun to your head, GT?

Or are you taking it on faith that he has threatened you with eternal damnation?

I am arguing that if someone put a gun to my head and ordered me to do something I did not want to do I can tell them to fuck off. So even if I am coerced I still have free will to do what I want to do. Do you disagree?

Yes, I have a basic instinct to want to survive and have an aversion to pain. Threatening me with either, by force if I choose against your wishes, is giving an ultimatum between what YOU want (worship me or go to hell), and what I DONT WANT(neither).

Also, God isnt putting anything to me whatsoever because I dont believe in it.

So you are saying that if someone put a gun to your head and ordered you to kill someone else, you would have no choice in killing them?

No, Im saying that choice and free will are different, conceptually, because there exists such a thing as coercion which alters the balance of freedom of choice in the favor of the assailant by use of a threat.

Such that you would not have a choice in killing them because you were coerced?

Thats exactly where we differ in what we consider free will.

You are making it directly akin to having a choice.

Im introducing the fact that an outside force using a threat to make you choose a certain way that theyd like, or else, is a choice but is no longer free will.

But it absolutely is free will, GT, because you could choose death.

Just because you don’t like the choices does not mean you didn’t have a choice.

You are literally arguing the definition of fatalism.

 

[G.T.]

Yes, I have a basic instinct to want to survive and have an aversion to pain. Threatening me with either, by force if I choose against your wishes, is giving an ultimatum between what YOU want (worship me or go to hell), and what I DONT WANT(neither).

Also, God isnt putting anything to me whatsoever because I dont believe in it.

So you are saying that if someone put a gun to your head and ordered you to kill someone else, you would have no choice in killing them?

No, Im saying that choice and free will are different, conceptually, because there exists such a thing as coercion which alters the balance of freedom of choice in the favor of the assailant by use of a threat.

Such that you would not have a choice in killing them because you were coerced?

Thats exactly where we differ in what we consider free will.

You are making it directly akin to having a choice.

Im introducing the fact that an outside force using a threat to make you choose a certain way that theyd like, or else, is a choice but is no longer free will.

But it absolutely is free will, GT, because you could choose death.

Just because you don’t like the choices does not mean you didn’t have a choice.

You are literally arguing the definition of fatalism.

I dont care what you think, I gave my opinion and you neener and cant stop. Especially prudent, because this conversation is for folks who take the bible literally and not for ding.

And for ding to say that his opinion is that the bible isnt literal, doesnt magically erase that literalists exist

And this question was posed to the folks who believe that, literally. Not an argument for ding and not an argument if ding thinks the bible is literal or not.

 

[ding]

I don’t disagree that those who profess in believing in a higher power do not act like they believe in a higher power. Myself included.

I dispute your assumption that we are threatened with burning in hell if we don’t behave.

Thats not my assumption, lots of folks actually believe in hell and eternal damnation. Calling that MY assumption is just a false assertion.

My assumption is that its fake.

That is exactly the argument you are making.

Whether you believe it or not does not matter because that is the argument you are making and the argument I am responding to.

I started this conversation by telling you it was a straw man argument.

If you are asserting that people dont believe in hell, I dont have anything left to say to that sort of dissonance. Its not an assumption, they say it out loud and theres also polls.

If you are going to discuss hell, you need to define what hell is, GT.

Hell is nothing more or less than eternal separation from God. And you get to choose that.

You opinion on what hell is is irrelevant to me.

There exists humans not named ding that believe that hell is eternal damnation and torture.

My commentary was for them.

Ypu butted in, and are proclaiming they dont exist and stating its merely an assumption of mine that they do, despite them being on video since video was invented and also answering polls that they do believe in it, all to falsely call something a strawman where that doesnt even pertain because they actually DO exist.

Cuz youre an obsessive compulsive arguer.

It absolutely is relevant to the discussion as you are arguing that the threat of hell is coercion.

I tried to shift the argument to something you do know about. Specifically a gun to your head forcing you to kill someone. I asked you if you had free will in choosing what you would do. As near as I can tell you chose to kill the poor sap and made an excuse that you didn’t have a choice. Did I get that wrong?