The reason its silly is because facilitating the material world as a means of offering a medium for the expression of (off the wall) desire for the living entity is a million times more efficient than stomping down free will. In fact you could argue that a god that can't facilitate free will is not omnipotent , ..... so go figure.
Does God make mistakes?
- Thread starter Alan McDougall
- Start date
Or how about that your just making crap up to explain away the "god is in control" but still lets babies get raped.
Could that be it.
The god that has no clothes.
God decides what the consequences to actions are. You can do whatever you want, but god decides how what you do affects you and everything else.
So per the above, god is not in control of the individual, allows freewill but will be the judge.
At least in this, we don't have it both ways, so good.
Can you tell me more about this part.
"but god decides how what you do affects you and everything else"
because god is the creator. people might wish it didn't hurt to get hit in the face but it does. :shrug:
The answer doesn't really line up with my question.
Maybe you can clarify it a little for me.
god is NOT in control..we are..until such time as god decides to get back in control..see revelations..
also
looked it up..
here
new testament quotes from searching for 'go to hell'..mostly it compares a bad action with a bad consequence..
read through a bunch of them..none said believe in jesus or go to hell.
also
looked it up..
here
new testament quotes from searching for 'go to hell'..mostly it compares a bad action with a bad consequence..
read through a bunch of them..none said believe in jesus or go to hell.
Could also be that you don't know what you are talking about ... I mean if the idea can find representation in popular culture and not be shy about attributing scripture, its not clear why you insist on a philosophical discussion that cant' come to par.
:shrug:
Shall we reduce the analogy to a car maker - who recalls cars for faulty workmanship? The truth is, this is an inexplicable and diabolical situation which humans face, and we'd be lying to cover it up with any religious nonesense.
But we would be equally in error to claim the reverse - that there is no Creator or controller and that errors are natural phenomena - plane crashes and tsunamies do not discriminate its victims. Yet also, from a scientific premise, a single error within the universe will not allow the universe to exist - eventually, all particles turn around and that tiny error will cause a domino effect - eventually a faulty car will catch up and break down.
We make much of these percieved errors. The universe, life and existance would not be legitimate without these error options being factored in. In the end we have to ask what exactly is an error - namely, as a premise and concept. Was there a time or situation when an error did not exst - and when and where did the premise come from? Does the premise of an error need to be created? At one time, based on a finite universe, there was no error - because there was nothing to cast an error upon. This says that errors and perfections are subjective premises.
Of course, none can pretend to understand or accept these premises - and equally we cannot accept a world without errors - that would be even more unscientific and inexplicable. Here, knowing and not knowing become equal dilemas. We cannot know without first not knowing - we cannot have perfection without first having imperfection. We panic about perishing in plane crashes - but not about death a few years ahead. More important than knowing what lies ahead - is where the heck we came from, why and how? More important than resurrection and after life - is original inception. What good is knowing where we're going - if we don't know where we are coming from? If we ask, WHO AM I? - we will only get an answer, WHO'S ASKING?
It might not say specifically, but what the heck do you think that this scripture means then?
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him??
I mean come on, what is Jesus suppose to save people from and ONLY if you "believe" in him?
f thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, THOU SHALT BE SAVED. (Romans 10:9)
If you don't..John 3:36 says you won't see life but the wrath of God. According to the Bible there is heaven and hell.
Let's not forget John 3:16
16For 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.
Which means if you don't believe in Jesus you will NOT have eternal life- heaven or hell, rather simple to conclude where one goes if they don't believe (according to the Bible that is)
here is where it says the unbelieving (along with other "sinners")
Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars— their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
Last edited:
The same dilema impacts if we say control is random - the antithesis of control. We have free will - but it is only limited in a small margin crevice and only applicable in the short term. In the big picture we have no free will. This also means all wrong doings have limited onus value. Its like casting a new born babe in hell - because it did not sign the dotted line of the Gospels or Quran - he goes to hell either way and worse if he remains neutral.
Humanity is in a mess - all beliefs are right - all beliefs contradict each other - all beliefs cannot be right. Belief has nothing to do with any religion - it is a generic trait in all life. Christianity and Islam perpetrated the worst crimes in human history - even after appearing the last - not an opinion but a fact. Some rely on things which cannot be proven - because belief is the easiest trait to exploit. Humanity has no choice but to discard the messenger and retain only the message - if it is a good message all will follow. Belief must be legitimately merited. The rest is cowardice.
Humanity is in a mess. Christianity rejected Islam - but claims to impound on others what is its own right to refuse. Judaism did not reject Christianity or Islam - they just remained as they were for 2,600 years before. That is an unforgivable crime, no? Sure - except if the same criteria was applied to Christians and Muslims!
A wise sage gave the best explanation of belief:
WHAT IS HATEFUL TO YOU - DO NOT UNTO OTHERS.
But Christianity and Islam reversed the equation:
WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOU - DO UNTO OTHERS.
And woe unto them if they refuse. Ve have Vays. :bugeye:
god created good and evil and defines it. god has perfect knowledge. if good and evil are defined, then perfection is attainable. like math. and behavioral science is as mathematical as physics. who besides god could have the right answer? when communion is restored with god and each other, we will all have the right answer.
we're talking about a life of no suffering and no death. and people don't want it.
The notion of a Messiah is not about eternal life, angels with harps or paradise with vestals. The Messiah premise, introduced in Judaism, refers fundamentally to knowing the reason for creation. We do not know this yet - there has not been a Messiah yet.
This knowledge is not meant for the Messiah but for humanity as a whole. A Messiah is only a postman with a message to deliver. Today, even if a Moses like figure appears and delivers a message as at Sinai, and 50 million people witness it - we must still reject it. This time we must be hardier stiff necks and demand that it be given to all humanity, openly and simultainiously, otherwise it is not a Messiah. In its absence, none can claim revelation or villify others for not *BELIEVING*. I believe this is what is expected of us and shifting from this is cowardice, self interest and a great folly of crimes against other sectors of humanity.
The Abrahamic and Mosaic premise is they reject CHOSEN - and are yet accused of this by those who went on to invent far greater chosen premises. The Creator must know that not a single human would reject an open and direct revelation - so why should any human group accept anything less? As it is, Christianity is a result of 2nd hand assurences which not a single christian demanded proof for, and is based on unethical premises of belief which fullfiled away the most majestic laws and criteria - and lost that battle.
You might just have said Hitler was in control in WW2
The proof about Jesus was not about facts but about faith , peace and love this god man emanated
Last edited:
Nonsense. That isn't proof.
It seems to me jpappl's implied stance on God and man is basically a Calvinist one.
According to Calvinist doctrine, man has free will - but only to do evil; man has no power to do any good; if man does any good, it is the work of God, not man.
(Read the chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Comparison_among_Protestants)
You actually imply such theology too when you say:
As if all human action would be irresponsible. (Meaning yours too, right now!)
Correction: They don't want it under the terms presented by some theists.
Not nonsense every time I meditate on the person of Christ I am filled with peace, love and a sense of eternal security I know in the last day he will again stand on the earth bringing universal everlasting peace and happiness
I still cant grasp why atheists are so angry with the idea of a divine creator, he who is above and inscrutable to man
Last edited: