I know he said "could" however even under a supposed assumption, if it's wrong, I have to stop and correct it. 

What I mean by that is no person can simply say "I believe" on his/her own.  The people that turn around and say they are saved cannot be saved by another person (that's why I wonder about those in the Episcopal church at times), and no one just can seek out God before they even know who God is.

You know I've been asked this before.  I understand what the label means but I do not apply myself to it.  I am simply a follower of Christ Jesus.  I do not subscribe to any label...  

I don't consider it to be but if you want to consider it one, your perogative. 

Well if you need a label then its a label. 

Just a reminder (as I pass through reading the new posts) that this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread.

Free will in the theistic sense can't exist in this universe anyway. How can thoughts and actions possibly be seperated from the thoughts and actions that preceded them? Everything is is just a link in a giant causality train leading back to the beginning of time. I'm with the Meravingian (sp?) on this one.

Oh, and just because some of those causes were random because of the Uncertainty Principle doesn't mean that there's room for free will - it means the opposite; that the closest you can get to freedom from causality is pure randomness, which by definition isn't controlled by anyone.

Theist-brand free will depends on an immaterial soul that magically operates outside time and physics yet somehow manages to interact with our physical brains in this universe. Yawn. It doesn't exist because it can't.

My question is why does there need to be?  Why do I need to label you an atheist or you label me a theist?  Are we not human beings first and foremost?   If we want to stop the hate and the need for segregation, we should stop needing the things that encourage them...such as labels.

The other way around actually...God will make some people to do his purpose and others do be quite literately the opposite.  If he does not want you to believe then he has you here for that reason.  Will he ever change that?  Who knows for sure but his purpose for you will be revealed at the right time.

First who said that you were created for anything other than this purpose?  Second, who said if you were to do it it means suffering?  

Romans 9:20-24 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?  What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 

Who are we to say that Hitler or Saddam were not doing what God wanted them to do?  As the verse above states, who are we to ask God why did he make us for this purpose?  It is those who oppose his will that suffer.

If you were created to blaspheme and the punishment is being sent to hell, it would follow that you were created to suffer in hell for eternity.  

So Hitler and Saddam could both be chillin' in heaven right now? 

Do we, as humans living on earth, have any means at all by which to judge whether or not a person is doing God's will?  Or is it safe to say that any person, anywhere, doing anything could be guaranteed a place in heaven as a result of their actions?

You would want your children to treat you as a friend?

I'm glad you weren't my father.  Some of the best fathers I have known have been friends to their children.  This model of authoritarian parenthood is, for me, disturbing.

Perhaps you should read this book, as it explains how liberal and conservative worldviews are derived from different family dynamics and morality.

Shaun 

Pulling out extreme examples does not make your point.  Being a friend to your child does not exclude being responsible for them or not making the rules.  The two are not mutually exclusive; friends and parents, that is.  It's true taht if you try to just be friends with your child, there will be issues.  I was simply saying that you can be their friend in addition.

I wasn't turning it into a political issue, I just thought that you would be interested in understanding how different philosophies of family dynamics influence political views.  I was simply suggesting an interesting book that explores these differences and their implications of our worldviews. 

And friendship shares many of the same qualities.  The authority aspect is mostly minimal, as it only comes up when a friend is in a position to seriously hurt themselves, and as a friend I would try to help them in this case. With a parent the authority is more prominent, but respect, leadership, and love are also very important.

I've worked with children of all ages for more than 15 years.  I work at a school where students are highly challenging, and I consider myself a teacher and a friend.  Granted, the friend role takes a back-seat to teacher most of the time, and generally only surfaces with some students who are willing to give the respect back and to look at me as more than a teacher as well. 

The loss of respect in our culture is due to many cultures, but parents being freinds with their kids is not to blame.  Parents not being good role models may be a contributing factor, bu that's not the same thing.

I give respect to my students.  When they do not return it, I am harder on them, and need to be firm.  When they return it, I give them more room and leeway, because they have earned some trust.  So far as that trust is not violated, these students will retain that leeway.  If another student complains that they don't get treated similarly, I ask them if they treat me the same way as the other students treat me.  

The real difference bwteen one's child and a friend is one chooses a friend based on their personality.  A child's personality is an unknown, but a parent is responsible for them no matter what.  How one treats those that they are responsible for but may not have chosen as a friend is indicative of how they will treat people that they are responsible for in life.  This is a political issue, as it seems that some theists in power want to treat people as inherently sinful and in need of a strong hand.  This model of thought is oppressive, as is the hand of the God of the Bible.  

Thus, God is permitted to punish those that sin, because we arehis children, right? The problem is that god is responsible for these people being sinful (example, homosexuality).  If God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc, then God knew that people who are gay (even if they did choose it, which is not the case but irrelevent), and he chose not to do anything about it.  God is responsible for ever parameter in existence, thus everything that happens is his responsibility.  This means that we essentially have no free will in thesense of being responsible for our choices.  God must have intended me to be as I am, so I or anyone else eternally damned had no choice about it.

Shaun 

Ok, without going through all the other threads (with no search functionality for me at the moment) I'll not argue the point about the quality of my example, the blasphemy challenge.  What I was trying to provide an example of, as I'm sure you realised, was a 'sin' that would be punishable by eternity in hell, or any other punishment that god sees fit to bestow on me.  For the sake of it, let's call it "Sin A".  I define "Sin A" as an act that will result in me being punished by God.

By what you said (I think)I was created by God, and if I happen to decide to commit Sin A, it was God's will that I do it, because we are all fulfilling His purpose.  However, through committing Sin A, I will be punished, thus God created me to suffer.  What a guy!

 You also said there were no guidelines we as humans can use to decide if somebody is doing God's will and then you immediately said that if we FEEL somebody has strayed from that path we can attempt to correct them?  Even though we have no guidelines ourselves??

 And then the thread was derailed into a debate about better parenting!

hehe

Well, if that's what you were saying, it wasn't what i gleaned from your posts.  I'm glad we are in agreement here (apparently).

You are correct, there is a difference bwetween the two. 

In fact, I am not doing this.  i'll explain below

Wait, so I have control but at the same time God's will over me I cannot avoid? So, I'm free except those times that God compels me? How does one tell the difference between the two?

If God does not want us damned, then God will compel us to act in such a way that we won't be.  So are you rejecting the concept of eternal punishment?  I'm really trying to grasp your theology, but it doesn't seem to cohere.  You claim to not be labeled or to be doing anything except following Jesus, but I'm not sure there is one unequivocal way to do this, so I'm asking what your interpretation of following Jesus you have.

---

The thing about the diffeence between parents and God; Parents are responsible for their children.  They took on that responsibility by deciding to have the child in the first place (or allowing the pregnancy to commence, at least).  God has a responsibility for us because God created us (I'm conceding this for the sake of argument).  The difference is that God is omnipotent and omniscient (unless your view of God does not include one of both of these qualities), and thus has a difference kind of responsibility for his creation than parents do for their children.  

When parents have a child, they did not create every aspect of that child's form.  They are not responsible for everything that is in it's environment.  Tehy don't have perfect knowledge of all of the factors that will ever happen in that child's life.  They don't have perfect information to tell them (if they choose), nor do they have the ability to heal any malformity, psychotic disorder, etc (not to mention that they don't decide to put them there in the forst place).

God, when creating the universe, had the power, if omnipotent ,to make the universe any way it wanted to.  And even if, hypothetically, god had to bow to logic, still the universe could have been formed in any way that is logically possible to happen.  It is possible that life could exist without death and disease.  It is possible to have a world without tsunamis and earthquakes, if God wanted that.

And it is possible to create a human being that will not sin, thus invalidating the Fall as an explanation.  God created Adam, as the story says, and put him in a paradise.  Why didn't God forsee the need for Eve (and why make Adam such that he would need something not already present?).   But why was the universe created in such a way that eating of the tree of knowledge was bad (or even possible) unless God wanted it that way.  Why make Eve temped by a sin, and why make it sin?

I know you can't answer these questions (because you are not God), but the point is taht God could, theortetically, have done otherwise.  God created us exactly as God wanted to, and he knows everything.  Thus, even if I actually choose to do X, God knew it, and created me knowing I would.  This leave no room for responsibility on my part, but of God's.

So, again, I'm asking you to explain if you believe God punishes some people eternally in Hell, and if so why? Lastly, have you ever read Plato's Euthyphro?

If not, read it now.  Go look it up and read it now.  NOW! 

So, if I'm not chosen, then God created me to be eternally punished?

Shaun 

You are srguing for a dualist view of humans; a body and a spirit. There is no evidence or reason to believe that a soul or spirit exists.

You say that the conscience is spririt, while the scientific literature on the subject shows that our moral faculty is based on physical brain-processes. Read the work of Marc. D. Hauser, Antonio Damasio, and other experts in the firlds related to neuroscience and morality, and you can see this for yourself.

Our brains are responsible not only for all thought, but unconscious drives, emotions (these are actually based on the whole nervous system and other glands taht release hormones and balance chemicals in the body), etc. There is no reason to propose a spirit, as it explains nothing.

Your fallacy is that of begging the question; in trying to determine the varacity of claims about the supernatural, you are assuming the supernatural (spirit).

There is some truth to the fact that there are aspects of oursleves that our will does not control. In fact the moral faculty that we have built-in often acts before we have time to consciously reflect on the question. It happens largely automatically and without reflection.  Often, this unconscious 'conscience' conflicts with what our willsmight choose to do, thus the analogy of the angel and devil on the shoulders.  Thus, we might feel that pull of the conscious because our in-built conscience has made some conclusion--it may be the right solution or not.  What we need to do isreflect on our feelings and reason to decide which is the right decision, as this faculty evolved as a tool that gave us advantage for surviving, and not necessarily for being correct.

If you want to call this conscience 'spirit,' then fine; but you have to concede that it is still material. if you don't, you have the burden of proof to show why a non-physical spirit is necessary, or simply demonstrate that it exists. You cannot merely assert it.

Shaun

As far as I know, most people use the free-will arguement to remedy the problem of evil, not clarity and inexcusiblity.

God, I believe created the world in such away that leaves man without excuse to know him (see romans 1:20 for a nice biblical reference). I do not believe the free-will arguement is a valid defense.

I would conclude if the Bible is the word of God, then God must have made it that is so clear that every man at every time, if they seeked, could find God.

How is it a cop-out? And why do you say I don't have evidence? Your ignorance of scientific progress in understanding how the brain works is not my fault. The literature is there, go read it.

And if you do have evidence, then present it. I'm genuinely interested in being shown evidence, but I've seen none (and yes, I have looked for it). I won't dismiss that you say you have evidence until sufficient time has passed and you haven't presented evidence. So far, I've seen no evidence from you for the existence of a spirit/soul.

OK, fair enough.

I haven't seen any evidence from you yet. I want the truth. If God is real and Christianity is true, I want to know. So far, I have not been convinced. You don't have to believe that I'm open to your evidence, but I am.

I think I might understand what you mean. It isn't the same as other "Christians" have argued, however.

Shaun

It's a cop out in the sense that "science" seems to be your excuse, not your defense. SciencTISTS have been wrong before and saying that science corrects itself does not justify what any single person states. Since one scientist can be wrong, ANY of them can be wrong. I know what you'll say, but, that same type of assumption has been used but you and others to justify "a+b must equal c".

You can always tell who wants to impose their own will over God's. ANY Christian who does this is wrong with their explination. Period.

Those who have are also the types that don't like to take personal responsibility for their own actions. There are no excuses for actions of the flesh for the spirit knows the right way...

He did. But you can't stop there. If you read just a bit further, starting with verse 21, you'll see that because they knew God but chose to not give thanks to the creator, God simply let them do their own thing. That is not free will but God's will to allow them to follow their flesh. Again, re-read the other portions of this thread - there is no free will of the spirit.

And if I told you that I KNOW God, how quickly will you dismiss me as delusional?  Delusional if you do, unfaithful if you don't.... 

So, how can a Christian go about proving God's existence? More over, how can God prove his own existence.

Just for conversation, in the bible, when the Jews are trying to leave Eygpt, God sends the 10 (?) plagues. And still the pharoh does not believe in god's existence or His power and His favor to the Jews. If god were to write in the clouds " i exist" I am sure I would come up with some story about aliens playing a prank on us. So since you have Razorphreak in a catch 22, how can he get out of it???

Getting back to the parenthood vs. authority or friendship strain of this thread, it is interesting that Jesus says in John 15:13 that he does not call his follower servants but friends.  I think Shaun is right, it is possible to be both a an authority figure in someone's life and a friend.  I have three kids and I think I am a good friend to each of them, but I am also a very strong authoritarian when I have to be.  Being a friend means that we have heart to heart talks and we play together.  Being an authority figure means that they better get up for school when I tell them too or else.

On the catch-22 part I was referring to this:

"And if I told you that I KNOW God, how quickly will you dismiss me as delusional?  Delusional if you do, unfaithful if you don't.... "

"Pretty quickly. Don't take it personally. You're hardly the only one. I've been known to be delusional every now and then too. "

To the pharoh: at that point he tells Moses and Aaron to take the Israelites and go.  Then later he takes the army and chases after the Israelites (then the parting of the Red Sea occurs).

Nevermind the point I was trying to make, it wasn't towards you (and I obviously failed in attempt) . It was more or less trying to say, it matters not the proof Christians bring here, because they think all Theists are delusional. So they might as well be talking to crazy people. So if all people who believe in God are crazy, is it rational to listen to them. So there's the dilemma for you Razorfreak.

So I would like to know your interpertation of 2 Corinthians 10:5
"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

If it is not your responsiblity to prove that God exists, then why does Paul say this, what does he mean. How can you demolish arguements against God, if you cannot prove that He exists?

And to the Atheists, what is the proof you need to possibly believe that God exists.