Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Satan and Science, His Creation to Mislead

page: 18
28
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
What is the point in making a decision about something that is impossible to achieve?


I'm not sure what you mean by this, but you are, perhaps, misreading my statement. Claims are made that there is no free will, because one cannot simply "will" reality to change. But free will is all about decision, not action -- it is the freedom to make choices without constraint, but once the decision has been made, constraint once again enters the picture.


Why can suffering be explained by rebellion against God's word but prosperity cannot be explained by conforming to God's desires?


Well, I'm not sure that suffering can be sufficiently explained by those terms, but Christians believe that prosperity is a relative thing, and that seeking prosperity in a mortal, temporary existence is not what God would have us do. The whole "store up your treasures in Heaven" bit, you know?

If I'm hanging around here for 50 or 80 years, but by "conforming to God's desires", I will have an eternity of joy, of what consequence is it that I owned a nice car or a big screen tv?




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
The one mindset wants to use reason, logic and experience to understand why an omni-X God gave life to certain creations knowing in advance what this would lead to. This mindset wants to understand why Free Will can exist in a world where all one's decisions are predetermined by this omni-X being's simple act of creating.


Foreknowledge is not predetermination -- God exists outside of time, so he simply knows what your end game is because it has, effectively, already happened for him. He doesn't force your decisions by knowing them before you make them, he just knows it.

Consider if you were to get a copy of tomorrow's paper today, and read of a traffic accident, which does not involve you. Did you cause the accident by knowing about it? No, of course not. Could you run to the location of the accident and figure out a way to prevent it? Maybe, but only at the cost of interfering in others' lives, forcing them to make decisions that you think are better for them, something that God says he's not going to do.


The other mindset wants to invent excuses on behalf of an omni-X God to explain why many, many millions of God's creations have suffered pain and misery and why God does not put a stop to this. This mindset wants to believe that it is the collective fault of Mankind that is to blame for all these things; the rebellion of our ancestors has doomed us to paying for their sins.


No excuses need be made. We live in a world of suffering, both natural and man made. The stuff we do to each other is hardly God's fault -- he's told us, on a number of occasions, to knock it off and we ignore him. The natural stuff, well, there's also a human piece in that, and my personal belief is that God doesn't interfere in natural processes any more than he interferes in our cultural processes.

Again, considering the eternal nature of things, this existence is less than a blink of an eye, regardless of how long and hard it may seem now.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Many times a child is told to 'stop it, knock it off'....but its obvious many children must learn the hard way and still choose to touch the stove top even when told not to.

There are reasons the child does this....just as there are reasons why humanity doesnt just 'listen and obey'.

Its meant to be this way. Through each having their own path of trial and errors, they will learn.

To God...how do you know Thee does not understand the excuses for ones trials and errors, and then forgives for what they know not?
edit on 18-10-2010 by LeoVirgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
To God...how do you know Thee does not understand the excuses for ones trials and errors, and then forgives for what they know not?


Huh? Wanna try that again, in clear English, please? We're not living in the time of King James.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


How do you know...that God is not in total understanding of why someone does what they do...and forgives them for what they knew not?

What is so confusing?

Is it that you dont think people get second chances...that their parent gives up on them and looses hope?

Do you not think that God, doesnt understand that people will put power, pride, greed, living for self....to the test....just to find out....that none of that really satisfied and fulfilled them....in turn...they eventually will discover their true self within them?

Do you not have faith that the design has purpose...to lead all back to Thee>

Did you always listen to your parents?
edit on 18-10-2010 by LeoVirgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by adjensen
 


How do you know...that God is not in total understanding of why someone does what they do...and forgives them for what they knew not?

What is so confusing?


Your awkward usage of English, lol.

However, this is slightly clearer, so I can try to sort it. Christian belief is that we are, indeed, forgiven for our sins, through the person of Jesus Christ. If you are asking if he will forgive us for doing things that are sins, but we intentionally did because we believed that they were not sins, well, that's a sticky point of theology. Personally, I think that if someone has been misled, that's one thing, but if they simply choose to ignore the fact that they are hurting others through their actions, that's quite another.

There needs to be consequences for breaking the rules -- otherwise, why have rules in the first place? If God reviews someone's story at judgement and says "okay, you didn't believe in me, you refused to follow my teaching, you intentionally caused pain in other's lives and you actively tried to turn people against me, but that's okay, I know you tried to do your best, welcome to heaven" where is the justice in that?

Your "second chance" belief fits in with the Catholic concept of purgatory, which, although it is not a part of my faith tradition (being Protestant,) I have no issue with. But central to purgatory theology is that there is still work to be done -- you're not just granted a free pass.
edit on 18-10-2010 by adjensen because: says != say



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Im not suggesting a free pass.

But Im not so quick to think that God doesnt make a way for us to keep learning from our wrongs.

Did you always listen to your parents? Did the famous 'Because I said so' always make you listen?



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by adjensen
 


Im not suggesting a free pass.

But Im not so quick to think that God doesnt make a way for us to keep learning from our wrongs.


Once again, if you'd stop being mysterious about what you feel, it would make the discussion a little easier.

If you mean reincarnation, without accumulated memory, there's nothing to say that you've learned anything from past wrongs. If I have a predilection for some certain unknown sin (let's say eating custard tarts is a sin,) when I get to heaven and God says "sorry you didn't realize custard tarts were on the naughty list, back you go!" I'd probably just go back to eat more custard tarts.

If that's not what you mean, if you're referring to correction in a single life, we already have that. One might cite conscience, one might cite external moral authority, one might cite confession, or a lot of other stuff, but there are plenty of feedback mechanisms for the person who wants to correct their own bad behaviour.


Did you always listen to your parents? Did the famous 'Because I said so' always make you listen?


Of course not, but I fail to see the relevance of this.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


After leaving the body complex, we see things as they are through the divine eye. This is when we really learn or RE learn I should say.

Just as grapes get sifted through the wine press...so are we getting sifted through a press and its called 'earth'.

You may have another experience that allows your nature to be more aware of those things you had issues with in another experience. You may have to face being killed by the sword instead of killing with the sword. In the complex of mind/spirit after death....its then you understand, its then it will make sense to you. But by following within....one's nature will be more geared to certain attributes like self or selflessness. Tested and tried.

I just have faith that God has a better plan then just 'one chance', especially being that thing of Spirit are not obvious...its not standing in everyones face every morning that there is a higher being to them. Many assume that they are only of this body and flesh and personality and nothing more.

I think God is soo great, that Thee makes a way. I dont claim I know how it works...but that it would be similar to a processing, a cycle, a sifting that weighs and measures over and over.


And the relevance of the not listening to the parents holds a answer to how God works. For the answers are around us in the cycles and orders we can observe.

Just as children dont act like robots and do all that their parents say....so are we, as Gods children, going to do this and God knows it. If someone is still bucking like a adolescences....God understands why they are doing this...for they are not ready for more. My point is, we are not made to 'just listen and obey'. We must learn why a certain path is better then another...we must understand it, experience it, know it for ourselves.
edit on 18-10-2010 by LeoVirgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


Well, there is little to no support for this belief in Christianity, but if you find truth in it, I'm glad that you've done so. Personally, I'm a bit more comfortable with having one shot to get it right, and if that's the case, this is our one shot :-)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by LeoVirgo
 


Well, there is little to no support for this belief in Christianity, but if you find truth in it, I'm glad that you've done so. Personally, I'm a bit more comfortable with having one shot to get it right, and if that's the case, this is our one shot :-)


True that ...I didnt gain such ideas through a book or a religion.

It is what I found within, on a personal path with Thee. I found out, Thee was so much greater then what I thought already!

I dont plead for my one chance to get it right....I plead for the masses that are not ready and I hold hope in the heavens and Earth that they will be led to where God needs them to be. I feel very much that this is what God has shown me, to be a light of hope for all. As I sought for 'self' I gained limits in understanding...it wasnt until I went to Thee seeking for ALL...that Thee burst forth to me in fullness.

Thanks for sharing and conversing...

All my best to you!
LV



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Foreknowledge is not predetermination -- God exists outside of time, so he simply knows what your end game is because it has, effectively, already happened for him. He doesn't force your decisions by knowing them before you make them, he just knows it.

But why are humans given this freedom knowing that while some will use it for good (Ghandi) some will use it for evil (Stalin)? Isn't it unfair on other creations that they be subjected to such evil and suffering because God gave those capable of such things the Free Will to do so? Are you or me to blame for the actions of Stalin?


Consider if you were to get a copy of tomorrow's paper today, and read of a traffic accident, which does not involve you. Did you cause the accident by knowing about it? No, of course not. Could you run to the location of the accident and figure out a way to prevent it? Maybe, but only at the cost of interfering in others' lives, forcing them to make decisions that you think are better for them, something that God says he's not going to do.

The question is, how would I get tomorrow's paper? More importantly, who or what enabled me to get that paper? If you found out it was John from across the street that gave you the newspaper, but then took it away before you read it in full, would you hold John responsible for the death of those that died?


No excuses need be made. We live in a world of suffering, both natural and man made. The stuff we do to each other is hardly God's fault -- he's told us, on a number of occasions, to knock it off and we ignore him. The natural stuff, well, there's also a human piece in that, and my personal belief is that God doesn't interfere in natural processes any more than he interferes in our cultural processes.

Yes they do need to be made and are continually made on these types of topics. Why were we created with the potential to cause pain and suffering to others? Where does evil come from and why does it exist? Saying "because we have strayed from God's teachings" is a very weak answer that does not address the issue at heart: WHY do these things exist in the first place?
edit on 18/10/2010 by Dark Ghost because: grammar



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by adjensen
Foreknowledge is not predetermination -- God exists outside of time, so he simply knows what your end game is because it has, effectively, already happened for him. He doesn't force your decisions by knowing them before you make them, he just knows it.

But why are humans given this freedom knowing that while some will use it for good (Ghandi) some will use it for evil (Stalin)? Isn't it unfair on other creations that they be subjected to such evil and suffering because God gave those capable of such things the Free Will to do so? Are you or me to blame for the actions of Stalin?


If our actions permit him to exist and behave in a poor manner, yes. If one doesn't stand up for right over wrong, what right does one have to decry wrong?



Consider if you were to get a copy of tomorrow's paper today, and read of a traffic accident, which does not involve you. Did you cause the accident by knowing about it? No, of course not. Could you run to the location of the accident and figure out a way to prevent it? Maybe, but only at the cost of interfering in others' lives, forcing them to make decisions that you think are better for them, something that God says he's not going to do.

The question is, how would I get tomorrow's paper? More importantly, who or what enabled me to get that paper? If you found out it was John from across the street that gave you the newspaper, but then took it away before you read it in full, would you hold John responsible for the death of those that died?


You're completely missing the point of the allegory. The source of the newspaper and whether you have the opportunity to read it doesn't matter. God knows "what's in the paper" because he is outside of time.



No excuses need be made. We live in a world of suffering, both natural and man made. The stuff we do to each other is hardly God's fault -- he's told us, on a number of occasions, to knock it off and we ignore him. The natural stuff, well, there's also a human piece in that, and my personal belief is that God doesn't interfere in natural processes any more than he interferes in our cultural processes.

Yes they do need to be made and are continually made on these types of topics. Why were we created with the potential to cause pain and suffering to others? Where does evil come from and why does it exist? Saying "because we have strayed from God's teachings" is a very weak answer that does not address the issue at heart: WHY do these things exist in the first place?


Why do what things exist? Evil? Evil is simply the placement of self over others. If free will does not exist, then evil need not, because God would not force you to make an evil decision.

You have two choices -- an existence without evil, but also without free will, or an existence with evil, but with free will, and the word of God which tells you not to do evil. Again, the fact that we ignore him results in evil, and is hardly his fault, because the alternative -- robotic slavishness, where God says "jump" and our only answer can be "how high" isn't appealing to God, or to a sane person.

Where do you think evil comes from?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
If our actions permit him to exist and behave in a poor manner, yes. If one doesn't stand up for right over wrong, what right does one have to decry wrong?

Does a child that fails to stand up to his father when he beats up his mother have the right to decry wrong? Does the boy deserve to be beaten?

What about an old man that sees somebody getting stabbed and is so overwhelmed by the experience that he collapses and loses his strength to apprehend the person responsible? Does he deserve to get stabbed?


You're completely missing the point of the allegory. The source of the newspaper and whether you have the opportunity to read it doesn't matter. God knows "what's in the paper" because he is outside of time.

You are ignoring a key problem in your allegory: the origin of the newspaper and how it came to be in the person's possession. You were talking about "cause and effect" earlier, so how can an effect (newspaper revealing future events) have no cause?


Why do what things exist? Evil? Evil is simply the placement of self over others. If free will does not exist, then evil need not, because God would not force you to make an evil decision.

"Follow my rules or you will suffer evil" - how's that for Free Will? In essence, God has doomed us to misery and suffering by giving us Free Will. That is the critical idea you keep ignoring. Every time somebody calls you out on this you invent a nonsensical excuse on God's behalf to explain why people suffer.


You have two choices -- an existence without evil, but also without free will, or an existence with evil, but with free will, and the word of God which tells you not to do evil. Again, the fact that we ignore him results in evil, and is hardly his fault, because the alternative -- robotic slavishness, where God says "jump" and our only answer can be "how high" isn't appealing to God, or to a sane person.

Hmm, when exactly do we get to make this choice?

Where did our tendency to rebel come from?


Where do you think evil comes from?

Evil derives from the Creator. All that we suffer and experience is only possible through the virtue of an Ultimate Reality. Whether perpetrated by men, animals, spirits, demons or demi-Gods ultimately the potential for evil was afforded to us by the being that created us. If God is real then He knows our nature and our potential to do good and to do evil. Giving us Free Will was irresponsible and negligent considering the consequences.
edit on 19/10/2010 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by adjensen
If our actions permit him to exist and behave in a poor manner, yes. If one doesn't stand up for right over wrong, what right does one have to decry wrong?

Does a child that fails to stand up to his father when he beats up his mother have the right to decry wrong? Does the boy deserve to be beaten?

What about an old man that sees somebody getting stabbed and is so overwhelmed by the experience that he collapses and loses his strength to apprehend the person responsible? Does he deserve to get stabbed?


We're getting a little far afield here, so I'll concede this point. My perspective is based on an eternal basis, yours is not, so I don't think that we're going to find common ground.



You're completely missing the point of the allegory. The source of the newspaper and whether you have the opportunity to read it doesn't matter. God knows "what's in the paper" because he is outside of time.

You are ignoring a key problem in your allegory: the origin of the newspaper and how it came to be in the person's possession. You were talking about "cause and effect" earlier, so how can an effect (newspaper revealing future events) have no cause?


All right, again we're getting lost in minutia, so let's move back from the allegory.

Let's say that I make a decision today to steal a car. For me, in time, I have yet to steal the car, I have yet to make my decision, and I can determine that I will not steal the car. For God, who is external to time, I have already made my decision, perhaps debated it internally, and ultimately stolen the car. But the decision was mine. He can watch me see the car, think about it, maybe walk away and come back, but the decision was mine. God's observation does not cause my decision, and neither does his foreknowledge of the decision and action.



Why do what things exist? Evil? Evil is simply the placement of self over others. If free will does not exist, then evil need not, because God would not force you to make an evil decision.

"Follow my rules or you will suffer evil" - how's that for Free Will? In essence, God has doomed us to misery and suffering by giving us Free Will. That is the critical idea you keep ignoring. Every time somebody calls you out on this you invent a nonsensical excuse on God's behalf to explain why people suffer.


Perhaps a clarification is in order again. "Follow my rules or you will suffer evil" -- does this suffering refer to evil in this world, or the next? If you mean in this world, you've it backwards, as Christ tells us that we probably WILL suffer evil for following him, the correct statement would be "Follow my rules or you will cause evil".

If you refer to the next world, you're saying that it is unfair to be held accountable for our actions, that judgement is unfair. You're welcome to that opinion, but I would disagree.

In either case, there is no impact on free will. Regardless of warnings, admonitions, preaching or anything else, most people will do whatever they want. It's just once they are called out on it that they will decry free will with a "why didn't you tell me this would happen in a way I was forced to believe it?"

Personally, I don't have faith because I'm afraid of the consequences of not having it, I appreciate the benefits in the here and now of having it.



Where do you think evil comes from?

Evil derives from the Creator. All that we suffer and experience is only possible through the virtue of an Ultimate Reality. Whether perpetrated by men, animals, spirits, demons or demi-Gods ultimately the potential for evil was afforded to us by the being that created us. If God is real then He knows our nature and our potential to do good and to do evil. Giving us Free Will was irresponsible and negligent considering the consequences.


Again, evil does not derive from the creator. The ability to do evil does, but the evil does not. If every person made nothing but good choices, the potential for evil would still exist, but evil would not.

Free will allows us to demonstrate that we are not children, and are capable of making good decisions. I fail to see how the two options of an eternity of existence as a slave, or a short period of potential suffering, followed by an eternity of existence as a non-slave would have anyone arguing that the first option is preferable.

If you do think that an eternity of slavery is preferable, that's fine, but it does not appear, as you note, that we have any say in the matter.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Taking the Pascal's Wager approach hey?


We will have to agree to disagree.

I thought about taking that approach as well, but the intellectual and rational side within me could not accept modern religion's depiction of God and His nature.

I guess we will have to wait and see who is right.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by adjensen
 


Taking the Pascal's Wager approach hey?


We will have to agree to disagree.

I thought about taking that approach as well, but the intellectual and rational side within me could not accept modern religion's depiction of God and His nature.


No, not at all. My faith is based on a lot of study, prayer and thought, and is more about the positive aspects in this life than worrying about the next one.

I'm not, in any way, a proponent of "hedging one's bet" -- a faith which is hollow is not what God wants, and I doubt that someone who came to God through Pascal's Wager would be considered to have real faith. As a logical process, it can be used to justify an existing faith, but it's not a reasonable method of evangelism (in my opinion.)


I guess we will have to wait and see who is right.


Indeed we will. And I'll bet that we'll both be surprised (pleasantly, I hope :-)



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Re adjensen

You wrote:

"Again, evil does not derive from the creator. The ability to do evil does, but the evil does not. If every person made nothing but good choices, the potential for evil would still exist, but evil would not."

First then: What IS evil?

To me it looks as if 'christian' evil is defined by breaking alleged divine commandments. A circular argument, based completely on faith in the elaborate myth of a geo-centric universe, creationism, temptation, redemption and salvation. Without such a faith in these mythical postulates, the 'christian' evil is just another word like 'blasphemy' 'heretic', 'hell' etc. You take it or leave it, and if you don't take it, western 'christianity' crumbles, because it has absolutely no intrinsic meaning for non-believers.

If you believe this system, you're allegedly born sinful, and can only escape the consequences of this alledged sin through faith. A faith to which a heavy pricetag has been attached in form of further obedience to the faith-system itself. It's a self-reinforcing doctrinal authority.

The buddhistic concept 'suffering' is on the other hand something everybody can relate to and understand, outside and independent of doctrines. It's a direct valid observation for all sapient beings and encompasses all sentient beings in cosmos. And it can even be used in a context of utilitarian morality, where the only thing needed is the ability to understand, that: "It could be my turn next time to need some compassion".

So ofcourse I'm all for lessening suffering (possible also called doing good deeds).

Take it or leave it.

Also:

"If you do think that an eternity of slavery is preferable, that's fine, but it does not appear, as you note, that we have any say in the matter."

You're just underlining the scare-argument (which you elsewhere deny). How can you possibly know, what happens in 'eternity' except by referring to your faith. You just add to the postulates you start from.

As to the origin of suffering, the gnostic answer to that doesn't necessitate convoluted doctrines, it simply places a considerable (but not complete) responsibility on an alleged cosmic creator for the quality of creation. But again, take it or leave it.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Re Dark Ghost

You wrote:

"This thread is turning into a disappointing display of two very differing Mind Sets (while also bringing forth some interesting and unique perspectives from certain members)."

There is, and has always has been, the option of metaphysics and modern science meeting.

But it's not half as entertaining as the entrenched positions of scientism and fundie religion fighting each other. It's my impression, that many visit ATS for the street theater.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Re adjensen

You wrote:

"Again, evil does not derive from the creator. The ability to do evil does, but the evil does not. If every person made nothing but good choices, the potential for evil would still exist, but evil would not."

First then: What IS evil?

To me it looks as if 'christian' evil is defined by breaking alleged divine commandments.


The "divine commandments" are two -- Love God, and love everyone else as much as yourself. Do those two things and you will do no evil. Pretty simple, really.


"If you do think that an eternity of slavery is preferable, that's fine, but it does not appear, as you note, that we have any say in the matter."

You're just underlining the scare-argument (which you elsewhere deny). How can you possibly know, what happens in 'eternity' except by referring to your faith. You just add to the postulates you start from.


No, please reread my statement and what it is responding to. There is no "fear" involved, but rather the claim that, if we lacked free will, there would be no period of suffering. I don't disagree with that, but I do disagree that giving up free will (effectively, becoming slaves to the will of another) is a price worth paying.

The two options:

1) Eternal existence, without death and suffering, but as a puppet of God, who forces you to behave in a manner that mitigates death and suffering

2) A brief mortal existence, with suffering and death, followed by an eternal existence, without being a puppet of God or anyone else

If those are the two available options (and, in terms of the discussion you came into, they are,) I fail to see how the first option is preferable to the second.






top topics



 
28
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join