Philosophizing, Theologizing Your Way to Hell

[Freak]

So many of you are philosophizing, theologizing your way to hell. Your looking for answers where there is no answers. We are but human. We are beings with limited knowledge but many of you seek to philosophize, theologize with the hopes of finding the answers to your questions. Who knows? You just might find some answers but there are questions to which there is no answers.

The apostle Paul speaks of evil as being a mystery. Moses speaks of the "secret things" belonging to the Lord (see Deut. 29:29). Some questions will never be answered, they are the secret things that belong to the Lord. So, stop philosophizing, theologizing and trust the Lord "in all your ways and He will direct your paths."

[flipper]

Should we stop science too? After all, science has done much more than philosophy and theology (which, quite frankly, hardly anyone reads) to justify atheistic and agnostic outlooks.

Or should we just stop certain avenues of science? Which kinds?

I will agree to a certain extent with you though. There are a lot of Christians who seem to regard reason/logic in the semi-superstitious light as the Catholics hold the Virgin Mary. And there is much about metaphysics, theological or otherwise, that will be a matter of conjecture and sterile argument in the abscence of any physical evidence.

The role of faith does appear to be subordinated by a chimerical kind of reason by some of these Christians. However, it is still possible to be a well-reasoned Christian, if you accept certain things as unknowable.

[spl_cadet]

We don't hold Mary in any sort of superstition.

[Sheepdog]

with all due respect, i have my disagreements with what you say. it is true that some things are left out of our reach and are only comprehensable by God. however, the greatest commandment says, You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all of your soul, and with all of your mind. Matthew 22:37 emphasis me. in reality no Christian should abandon philosophy and theology, but to the extent God has granted to each Christian, seek to love God with all our minds by studying theology and philosophy.

[kiwimac]

Freak,

God gave us minds with which to reason & God is glorified when human beings act like reasoning adults rather than like children.

Kiwimac

[Pate]

Like others have already said, philosophy and theology can be used to love God with all our mind. I don't want to despise such gifts as intelligence, ability to reason, creativity, rationality, etc. They are part of the image of God that's in all of us. If we don't love God with our minds, we are, in a way, only 2/3 parts Christians. (I don't mean to suggest, that the "rational love" of God is a prerequisite of salvation. However, I do believe that it's something that God has purported us to practise.)

[Pate]

02-23-2003 @ 05:20 AM
flipper:

Should we stop science too? After all, science has done much more than philosophy and theology (which, quite frankly, hardly anyone reads) to justify atheistic and agnostic outlooks.


No, we certainly shoud not.

But actually, science does nothing to support atheism, when isolated from philosophy. Atheism is a philosophical position, and so is agnosticism. Science is (and probably should be) methodologically naturalistic. Atheism is not about methodology, but especially ontology.

Also, science itself is dependent on certain philosophical presuppositions without which it would be useless.

[Freak]

02-23-2003 @ 07:55 AM
Sheepdog:

with all due respect, i have my disagreements with what you say. it is true that some things are left out of our reach and are only comprehensable by God. however, the greatest commandment says, You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all of your soul, and with all of your mind. Matthew 22:37 emphasis me. in reality no Christian should abandon philosophy and theology, but to the extent God has granted to each Christian, seek to love God with all our minds by studying theology and philosophy.

We are but humans. We are limited in our scope of understanding theology, etc. Deut. 29:29 makes this clear.

[bdtayl]

02-23-2003 @ 03:07 PM
Freak:



We are but humans. We are limited in our scope of understanding theology, etc. Deut. 29:29 makes this clear.

Tim Taylor

Your statement is self-contradictory. If you are limited in understanding something (God in this case), then you have eliminated the very basis for your claim. IOW you've no basis for saying that you are limited, or by how much, or to what.

This is one of the silliest defenses any religious believer can make in response to reasoned criticism.

[Freak]

02-23-2003 @ 06:44 PM
bdtayl:



Tim Taylor

Your statement is self-contradictory. If you are limited in understanding something (God in this case), then you have eliminated the very basis for your claim. IOW you've no basis for saying that you are limited, or by how much, or to what.

This is one of the silliest defenses any religious believer can make in response to reasoned criticism.

Perhaps next time that mind of yours can be employed. It would be a benefit to all of us.

[flipper]

Pate wrote:


But actually, science does nothing to support atheism, when isolated from philosophy. Atheism is a philosophical position, and so is agnosticism.

I disagree because, in many cases, although atheism is an epistemological position, it is one that can find its anchors in observed reality. If what we observe is in contradiction of a creation story, then it is a point against that religion's veracity and a point in favor of a naturalistic philosophy. Science has helped provide a more complete framework for atheism that is rooted in observed reality.

I'm with Dawkins on this one:


...whereas before Darwin came along, you could have been an atheist, but you’d have been a bit worried, after Darwin you can be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. You can feel, really, now I understand how living things have acquired the illusion of design, I understand why they look as though they’ve been designed, whereas before Darwin came along, you’d have said, well, I can see that the theory of a divine creator isn’t a good theory, but I’m damned if I can think of a better one...

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript410.html

[flipper]

spl_cadet:

We don't hold Mary in any sort of superstition.

She does seem to be according a particular and peculiar sort of reverence. Oftentimes, this appears to encourage a superstitious component. If you like, I could tally up recent 'appearances' of BVMs versus 'appearances' of Jesus.

[Pate]

flipper: I disagree because, in many cases, although atheism is an epistemological position, it is one that can find its anchors in observed reality. If what we observe is in contradiction of a creation story, then it is a point against that religion's veracity and a point in favor of a naturalistic philosophy. Science has helped provide a more complete framework for atheism that is rooted in observed reality.

First, atheism is not just the denial of creation stories.

Secondly, it certainly is not a matter of natural sciences to evaluate whether or not certain creation story contradicts science or not.

Thirdly, I could just as easily say that "Science has helped provide a more complete framework for rational theism that is rooted in observed reality."

When making statements like the one from Dawkins that you quoted, one is doing philosophy, not merely science.

[bdtayl]

02-23-2003 @ 06:53 PM
Freak:



Perhaps next time that mind of yours can be employed. It would be a benefit to all of us.

Tim Taylor
And perhaps if you rebut what I wrote instead of displaying your ignorance via an ad hominem your opinion would attain some relevance.

Just tell us how you can simultaneously say that knowledge of God is limited when you have in fact just limited your ability to make such a statement.

It is absurd.

[Freak]

02-23-2003 @ 07:51 PM
bdtayl:



Tim Taylor
And perhaps if you rebut what I wrote instead of displaying your ignorance via an ad hominem your opinion would attain some relevance.

Just tell us how you can simultaneously say that knowledge of God is limited when you have in fact just limited your ability to make such a statement.

It is absurd.

I said God's knowledge is not limited but ours is.

[bdtayl]

02-23-2003 @ 09:20 PM
Freak:



I said God's knowledge is not limited but ours is.

Tim Taylor

Please explain how you know God's knowledge is not limited when by your own admission, the knowledge you have to make such a statement is limited.

[geebob]

Of course our knowledge is limited.

If we knew all the answers, there would be no reason for philosophy.

If we knew everything about God, we would have no reason for theology.

Philosophy and theology are investigations.

[bdtayl]

02-24-2003 @ 12:09 AM
geebob:

Of course our knowledge is limited.

If we knew all the answers, there would be no reason for philosophy.

If we knew everything about God, we would have no reason for theology.

Philosophy and theology are investigations.

Tim Taylor
So, do you agree Freak has eliminated his basis for claiming that God is all knowing?

[geebob]

I don't know about that. I'd have to reread what he said and look closer at your arguement, so I certainly wouldn't say it was obvious.

[Freak]

02-23-2003 @ 09:44 PM
bdtayl:



Tim Taylor

Please explain how you know God's knowledge is not limited when by your own admission, the knowledge you have to make such a statement is limited.

God is all knowing. We are not. Simple theology.

There is some things we do know. For example-God is love (i John 4:8). We know God is perfect and we are not. Quite simple my friend.

[Socrates]

There is no basis for the anti-apologetics position Freak is advocating. 1 Peter 3:15 says we are to give a reason (Greek απολογια apologia) for the hope we have.

I suggest that anti-apologists fail to distinguish between the ministerial and magisterial uses of reason. AiG has a helpful article Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v12n2_logic.asp).

[flipper]

Pate:

First, atheism is not just the denial of creation stories.

True. But as creation myths are the cornerstones of the main questions that most (if not all) religions seem to answer, if you demolish these then the rest of the edifice seems suspect to say the least.

After all, if you are wrong on the most fundamental questions ("why are we here?"), then why should your system be considered trustworthy on any of the other big questions? I know that you will tell me that allegory and metaphor are also a part of many religious systems, but (at least within Christianity) there is a sizeable group of people who will tell you that the word is absolutely true, and that any other intepretation is dangerously wrong.

No, I am not claiming that atheism is science. No, it is not the role of science to disprove creation stories (or anything, per se). Yes, it is possible to be a reasoned Christian who may interpret scientific discoveries to provide evidence round and about for the existence of God. Yes, there are many excellent scientists who are Christians.

Nevertheless, many atheists have found science to be a important enabler of their belief system. Christianity began with a core set of beliefs that, if taken literally, appear to be in conflict with some key pieces of scientific knowledge deriving from the late 19th Century. On the other hand, atheism was stuck with a number of very difficult challenges until the same time when, as Dawkins pointed out, it became possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Therefore, for many atheists, the foundations of their world view are derived from the physical evidence of science. Atheism is, I suppose, a philosophy, but it is generally a materialist and empirical one. It is not science, but it is neither theology nor metaphysics. Is worldview another word for philosophy?

[bdtayl]

02-24-2003 @ 02:41 AM
Freak:



God is all knowing. We are not. Simple theology.

There is some things we do know. For example-God is love (i John 4:8). We know God is perfect and we are not. Quite simple my friend.

Tim Taylor
The statement is still contradictory no matter who said it or in what book it appears.

I think you now realize the contradictory nature of the statement, which is why you are now engaging in question-begging by quoting the Bible to prove the same Biblical claim.

In any event, Yahweh is not all-knowing:

Genesis 18 (ASV)
20 And Jehovah said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

[Socrates]

The Tillite Troll Tim Taylor shows he has the hermeneutical skills of a demented dryopithecine: :dunce:In any event, Yahweh is not all-knowing:

Genesis 18 (ASV)
20 And Jehovah said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.Evidently TT has no idea about Biblical figures of speech and still resorts to crass hyperliteralism :doh:—see Does the Bible Indicate that God is not Omnipresent or Omniscient? (http://www.tektonics.org/godallover.html) Yes, I know he rants :rant: against this site but who cares?

[bdtayl]

02-24-2003 @ 12:52 PM
Socrates:

<snip ad hominem silliness from Socrates>

Socrates
Does the Bible Indicate that God is not Omnipresent or Omniscient? (http://www.tektonics.org/godallover.html) Yes, I know he rants :rant: against this site but who cares?

Tim Taylor
Either present your own arguments, or admit you can't.

Reply to what I posted with an argument, not with a URL.

If you want to play the metaphor game, no problem. The resurrection is a metaphor.

[Freak]

02-24-2003 @ 12:15 PM
bdtayl:



Tim Taylor
The statement is still contradictory no matter who said it or in what book it appears.

I think you now realize the contradictory nature of the statement, which is why you are now engaging in question-begging by quoting the Bible to prove the same Biblical claim.

In any event, Yahweh is not all-knowing:

Genesis 18 (ASV)
20 And Jehovah said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Are you this dense in real life or just here on this forum?

Genesis 18 does not negate His omnipresence for verse 20 tells us that God knows of their "sin"-He knows all their problems and He knows its "grievous"-He sees everything, everything is uncovered by Him. This in reality points to His omnipresence.

God often conveys in a way that often times us humans misunderstand (as you have done). When Jesus tells us He's a "door" (see John 10:9)-it doesn't mean He's a literal door of some material substance but rather He is conveying a spiriutal reality to us (He is the way).

In Genesis 18 God is speaking of intervening in human affairs; not that He is somehow limited in what is going on down on earth (because I have already shown you from verse 20 that He is in fact omnipresent).

Hint: When reading the Scriptures use some common sense.
BTW--you are example of someone philosophizing, theologizing their way to Hell.

[bdtayl]

02-24-2003 @ 02:43 PM
Freak:


Freak
Are you this dense in real life or just here on this forum?

Tim Taylor
Ho hum, another ad hominem fallacy. We'll see who can't address the problem.

Freak
Genesis 18 does not negate His omnipresence for verse 20 tells us that God knows of their &amp;quot;sin&amp;quot;-He knows all their problems and He knows its &amp;quot;grievous&amp;quot;-He sees everything, everything is uncovered by Him. This in reality points to His omnipresence.

Tim Taylor
Genesis 18 (ASV)
20 And Jehovah said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, AND SEE WHETHER THEY HAVE DONE ALTOGETHER ACCORDING TO THE CRY OF IT, WHICH IS COME UNTO ME, and if not, I will know

Now, actually deal with what it says. It says he must go down to see if their sin is actually as grave as reported, and IF NOT, HE WILL KNOW.

If he already knew this, he wouldn't need to &quot;go down there&quot;, so yes, verse 21 does negate omniscience.

Freak
God often conveys in a way that often times us humans misunderstand (as you have done).

Tim Taylor
Your knowledge is limited, so you have no basis to make this statement.

Do you enjoy having your poor reasoning thrown back into your lap?

You can save the sermonette and post an argument that actually analyzes the text.

I want you to respond specifically, and in detail, to what verse 21 says. Stop posting ad hominem crap and post an argument.

Freak
When Jesus tells us He's a &amp;quot;door&amp;quot; (see John 10:9)-it doesn't mean He's a literal door of some material substance but rather He is conveying a spiriutal reality to us (He is the way).

Tim Taylor
It's up to you to SHOW Genesis 18 is not to be understood as it is written and it is up to you to SHOW that your original statement I replied to is not contradictory and it's up to you to SHOW that Jesus' comments apply to Genesis 18. This isn't church, so don't expect to ooh and ah when you decide to sermonize. Just when will you be doing that?

Freak
In Genesis 18 God is speaking of intervening in human affairs; not that He is somehow limited in what is going on down on earth (because I have already shown you from verse 20 that He is in fact omnipresent).

Tim Taylor
Your knowledge is limited, so you have no basis to make this statement.

Aren't you glad you uttered that absurdity?

No, all verse 20 shows is that he is claiming they are sinful (something that would be redundant given original sin) but verse 21 says he must go check on the details TO SEE IF WHAT HE HAS HEARD ("the cry") is true.

If he already knew the details, verse 21 would be irrelevant.

Freak
Hint: When reading the Scriptures use some common sense.
BTW--you are example of someone philosophizing, theologizing their way to Hell. [/QUOTE]

Tim Taylor
Hint, when replying to an argument, don't ignore verses that contradict your claims.

BTW, Hell does not exist and I'm as worried about ending up there as you are about ending up in the Muslim version of Hell
for being a blasphemer.

After I finish shredding you on this, you can prove to members of this forum that hell exists without begging the question that the Bible is accurate about the existence of hell. That will be entertaining.

Finally, you failed to respond to this, so I'm reinserting it:

========
The statement is still contradictory no matter who said it or in what book it appears.

I think you now realize the contradictory nature of the statement, which is why you are now engaging in question-begging by quoting the Bible to prove the same Biblical claim.
=========

[Freak]

bdtayl--

I'm sorry you lack the reasoning skills to really participate in this discussion.

God's nature is beyound this time and space reality and yet you like to box Him up as if He were. His being transcends the time and space. The language employed in Genesis 18 is yet another example of using language to convey God's interaction with humanity. It can be no means taken as a discourse on the doctrine of omnipresence. Your failure to understand this is baffling.

[bdtayl]

Freak
I'm sorry you lack the reasoning skills to really participate in this discussion.

Tim Taylor
Translation: Your last post demanded detail and arguments and since I'm incapable of anything but sermoninzing, I'm going to
commit the fallacy of ad hominem and try to duck out and hope nobody notices.

Freak
God's nature is beyound this time and space reality and yet you like to box Him up

Tim Taylor
I'm sorry, but you don't have the knowledge to make this statement. Aren't you glad you started this thread with that self-contradictory absurdity?

Freak
as if He were. His being transcends the time and space.

Tim Taylor
Sorry, you lack the knowledge to make this statement. Also, you simply beg the question that the Bible is correct when it makes this statement.

Freak
The language employed in Genesis 18 is yet another example of using language to convey God's interaction with humanity.

Tim Taylor
I gave you the opportunity to specifially SHOW US in my last post.

The verses seem to have disappeared.

Freak
It can be no means taken as a discourse on the doctrine of omnipresence. Your failure to understand this is baffling.

Tim Taylor
Your failure to posit a specific reply to my last post is no mystery. You can't.

[Freak]

bdtayl--

I, as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ view the Scriptures as being God inspired. You apparently don't. You have the right to be wrong.

It is mind-bending to discuss a Biblical theological truth with someone who holds to no Biblical theological views. I have offered a orthodox view on the issues you have raised. You simply dismissed them. You have failed to understand basic Biblical interepretation (and the use of language & common sense). So...

[bdtayl]

Freak
I, as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ view the Scriptures as being God inspired. You apparently don't. You have the right to be wrong.

Tim Taylor
My friend Abdul is visiting from Yemen. He wanted to say something.

I, as a believer in Allah view the Koran as being Allah inspired. You apparently don't. You have the right to be wrong.

Freak
It is mind-bending to discuss a Biblical theological truth with someone who holds to no Biblical theological views. I have offered a orthodox view on the issues you have raised. You simply dismissed them. You have failed to understand basic Biblical interepretation (and the use of language &amp; common sense). So...


Tim Taylor (quoting Abdul)

It is mind bending to discuss a Koranic theological truth with someone who holds to no Koranic theological truths. I have offered an orthodox view on the issues.........

Tim Taylor
The question Freak is whether those "views" and "interpretations" are coherent, or incoherent and can be shown via arguments to be rational.

They can't and your special pleading doesn't make it so.

[Freak]

02-24-2003 @ 04:45 PM
bdtayl:

Freak
I, as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ view the Scriptures as being God inspired. You apparently don't. You have the right to be wrong.

Tim Taylor
My friend Abdul is visiting from Yemen. He wanted to say something.

I, as a believer in Allah view the Koran as being Allah inspired. You apparently don't. You have the right to be wrong.

Freak
It is mind-bending to discuss a Biblical theological truth with someone who holds to no Biblical theological views. I have offered a orthodox view on the issues you have raised. You simply dismissed them. You have failed to understand basic Biblical interepretation (and the use of language &amp;amp; common sense). So...


Tim Taylor (quoting Abdul)

It is mind bending to discuss a Koranic theological truth with someone who holds to no Koranic theological truths. I have offered an orthodox view on the issues.........

Tim Taylor
The question Freak is whether those &quot;views&quot; and &quot;interpretations&quot; are coherent, or incoherent and can be shown via arguments to be rational.

They can't and your special pleading doesn't make it so.

*sigh*


God cannot be boxed within the human parameters of reason & logic like you would like Him to be. The truth, Jesus, you know of. You are simply suppressing the truth as most of humanity does. You know the truth deep down within your soul nature-you simply reject it for moral reasons (for you know you stand guilty before God because of your sin).

The reality of the conscience points to this reality. Atheists & skeptics are baffled when confronted with the reality of the conscience. They readily admit they have one yet the origin of the conscience causes all kinds of concerns.

We love you my friend and pray you surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ today.

[bdtayl]

Freak
*sigh*

God cannot be boxed within the human parameters of reason &amp; logic like you would like Him to be.

Tim Taylor
You lack the knowledge to make this claim.

I'm so glad you are here to tell us what the properties of God are!

Freak
The truth, Jesus, you know of.

Tim Taylor
The truth, Allah, you know of.

Freak
You are simply suppressing the truth as most of humanity does. You know the truth deep down within your soul nature-you simply reject it for moral reasons (for you know you stand guilty before God because of your sin).

Tim Taylor
You are simply suppressing the truth as most of humanity does. You know the truth deep down within your soul nature-you simply reject it for moral reasons (for you know you stand guilty before Allah because of your blasphemy).

Freak
The reality of the conscience points to this reality.

Tim Taylor
No, the reality of the conscience is proof that the conscience exists. That's it.

Freak
Atheists &amp; skeptics are baffled when confronted with the reality of the conscience.

Tim Taylor
It doesn't baffle me. Do you mean the way arguments baffle you?

Freak
They readily admit they have one yet the origin of the conscience causes all kinds of concerns.

Tim Taylor
Is there an argument in here somewhere? It causes me no concern.

[i]Freak
We love you my friend and pray you surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ today.

Tim Taylor
If prayer worked I'd still be a Christian. You pray for me and I'll think for you.

[Freak]

Tim--

You said: If prayer worked I'd still be a Christian.

One cannot experience a unjustfication. That is foreign to Scripture. You need to partake of the divine nature, my friend. Simply put-you need to be born again.

[bdtayl]

Freak
Tim,
You said: If prayer worked I'd still be a Christian.

One cannot experience a unjustfication.

Tim Taylor

Your knowledge is too limited to make this claim.

Freak
That is foreign to Scripture.

Tim Taylor
Perhaps when you show the Bible is an authority, your comment will have some relevance.

Freak
You need to partake of the divine nature, my friend. Simply put-you need to be born again.

Tim Taylor
You need to post an argument. Your sermonizing blather is irrelevant.

[Pate]

Flipper, OK. We don't seem to disagree so much on this after all. It's just that we look at this from a little different angles. I'll rest my case by stating that it's true that scientific discoveries often have some philosophical/theological/atheological implications, but the examination of those implications is a task of philosopical/theological nature, not one of scientific nature.

[Freak]

02-24-2003 @ 07:13 PM
bdtayl:

Freak
Tim,
You said: If prayer worked I'd still be a Christian.

One cannot experience a unjustfication.

Tim Taylor

Your knowledge is too limited to make this claim.

Freak
That is foreign to Scripture.

Tim Taylor
Perhaps when you show the Bible is an authority, your comment will have some relevance.

Freak
You need to partake of the divine nature, my friend. Simply put-you need to be born again.

Tim Taylor
You need to post an argument. Your sermonizing blather is irrelevant.

Perhaps an atheist forum would better suit you.

[geebob]

bdtayl, I'd have to disagree with your arguement that limited knowledge means that we can't know that God's knowledge is unlimited. To say that we have limited knowledge means that we have knowledge. The proposition, "God knows everthing" is well within the grasp of finite minds.

as for your claims about genesis 18, I agree with your intuition here. God is trying to find something out. But that does not mean that God is not omniscient. We could say that what God is trying to find out had no truth at the time.

Here is my preferred explanation as to how Genesis 18 is still compatible with the omniscience of God. It's from Greg Boyd at his forum.

Verse 21 is not the easiest of verses to translate, so this is tentative, but it seems to me that what English translations I have here all overlook something. You have the Hebrew kalah, an adverbial particle modifying the verb ’asu (the "they have done" of the RSV, NIV, NAS, and KJV). kalah means (check it for yourselves) something like "accomplished or completed end," "full end," or "finish." Here kalahdirectly follows the verb "they have done," which comes out in the RSV as "whether they have done altogether as the outcry" or, in the NAS as "whether they have done entirely according to its outcry."

However, it’s possible that these translations slightly miss the point. After checking on how kalah is used in the OT (e.g., 1Ki 6.38; Neh. 9.31; Isa. 10.23; 15.6; Jer. 5.18; 8.20; Dan. 11.36; Nah. 1.8f; 2.1 and others) it seems to me that v. 21 ought to be understood as saying something like, "I will go down to see whether or not their deeds have reached their fill as the outcry suggests."...

That God both knows perfectly existing realities (i.e., the state of Sodom’s sinfulness) AND would desire to further know something about Sodom is not a contradiction of terms any more than that God perfectly knew Abraham but yet desired to resolve Abraham’s potential for better or worse on a particular point. Likewise, God goes down to Sodom not to know whether or not the information provided by the outcry was accurate or not (this WOULD involve God in ignorance of an existing reality), but rather to resolve the potential for better or worse with respect to the "will" of Sodom and Gomorrah’s citizens.

an unresolved potential is of course unknowable as to how it will be resolved. otherwise it wouldn't represent more than one possibility.

[Freak]

02-24-2003 @ 07:13 PM
bdtayl:

Freak
Tim,
You said: If prayer worked I'd still be a Christian.

One cannot experience a unjustfication.

Tim Taylor

Your knowledge is too limited to make this claim.

Freak
That is foreign to Scripture.

Tim Taylor
Perhaps when you show the Bible is an authority, your comment will have some relevance.

Freak
You need to partake of the divine nature, my friend. Simply put-you need to be born again.

Tim Taylor
You need to post an argument. Your sermonizing blather is irrelevant.

God's truth is not irrelevant. There's not enough evidence we can provide to you that will awaken you to the truth. For, due to moral reasons, you have rejected God, not because you can't believe. But God offers hope of eternal life through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

[bdtayl]

02-25-2003 @ 12:02 AM
Freak:

God's truth is not irrelevant. There's not enough evidence we can provide to you that will awaken you to the truth. For, due to moral reasons, you have rejected God, not because you can't believe. But God offers hope of eternal life through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

[/i]Tim Taylor
This will be my last reply to you because you wouldn't recognize a
logical argument if one hit you in the head.

The same sermon you just posted could be spoken by a Muslim to a Christian.

I have rejected your God because he does not exist just as you reject Zeus because he does not exist.

It has nothing to do with "moral reasons."

[bdtayl]

Geebob
bdtayl, I'd have to disagree with your arguement that limited knowledge means that we can't know that God's knowledge is unlimited. To say that we have limited knowledge means that we have knowledge. The proposition, &quot;God knows everthing; is well within the grasp of finite minds.

Tim
How do you know the proposition "God does not know everything" is not contained in the piece of knowledge you do not have?[i]

Geebob
as for your claims about genesis 18, I agree with your intuition here. God is trying to find something out. But that does not mean that God is not omniscient. We could say that what God is trying to find out had no truth at the time.

Here is my preferred explanation as to how Genesis 18 is still compatible with the omniscience of God. It's from Greg Boyd at his forum.

an unresolved potential is of course unknowable as to how it will be resolved. otherwise it wouldn't represent more than one possibility.

Tim Taylor
Thank you responding with an argument. This argument appears to dance around the issue though.

The words "then I will know" appear in verse 21. That means there is something he does not know, and that thing he does not know is certainly occuring as he speaks, so it does have truth
at the present time.

That means he is not all knowing.

[Freak]

02-25-2003 @ 12:11 AM
bdtayl:



[/i]Tim Taylor
This will be my last reply to you because you wouldn't recognize a
logical argument if one hit you in the head.

The same sermon you just posted could be spoken by a Muslim to a Christian.

I have rejected your God because he does not exist just as you reject Zeus because he does not exist.

It has nothing to do with &quot;moral reasons.&quot;

It's amazing a God hater would come to a Christian forum. Very interesting. Yes, for moral reasons (your sin that you are fully aware of), keeps you from asking forgiveness. We will pray for you.

[geebob]

It's amazing a God hater would come to a Christian forum.

<sigh> Imagine that, in a place where we invite those who disagree to engage in dialogue.

[Freak]

02-25-2003 @ 04:00 AM
geebob:



&lt;sigh&gt; Imagine that, in a place where we invite those who disagree to engage in dialogue.

I was making a point. Here he was complaining about hearing Jesus and yet he failed to realize he was in a Christian forum. Stop poisoning the well, geebob.

Get a clue.

[kiwimac]

Freak,

You're doing it again! Stick to the subject, eschew the ad hominem and actually try, this time, to answer his objections. If you find them more than you can cope with, say so , no one will object. You are not after all Superman!

Kiwimac

[ACow]

So many of you are philosophizing, theologizing your way to hell. Your looking for answers where there is no answers. We are but human. We are beings with limited knowledge but many of you seek to philosophize, theologize with the hopes of finding the answers to your questions. Who knows? You just might find some answers but there are questions to which there is no answers.

You said, and i quote: "You just might find some answers".

You answered your own question. Thankyou. Case closed.

No offence, but you are the kind of person, not theist/athiest, but the kind of PERSON, that i can't stand. Not only happy in your own ignorance, you wish to spread it to others.

Not only that, but after saying "looking for the answers is pointless", you then offer your own, which is "close your eyes, and trust in the lord", belief in which, by your own logic, is pointless.

Ironically, i bet your also a person who will jump out of the way of a moving car instead of trusting the lord to take care of you. Typical hypocrite. In both your behaviour and your reasoning.
No offence intended, but your first post was an embaressment to the rest of the christians, atheists, and indeed the entirety of humanity, who are at least trying to think.

[geebob]

How do you know the proposition "God does not know everything" is not contained in the piece of knowledge you do not have?

If we are speaking of the traditional view of knowledge, (which I am) which is true justified belief, then necessarily, if you know something, it is true.

The words "then I will know" appear in verse 21. That means there is something he does not know,

If the future is metaphysically open then what he will know is at present not true and thus not subject to knowledge. After the potential is resolved, it will be the object of truth.

In a world where the future is open, the detail that is open cannot be expressed in the fashion, "It will be thus" or "It won't be thus," but rather "It may happen this way or it may happen that way." That is a proposition that is subject to truth and it's truth negates the first two propositions. Thus to know everything about a world in which the future is open is to know propositions like the last and not propositions like the first two in states of affairs where the last one is true.

and that thing he does not know is certainly occuring as he speaks, so it does have truth

To see if they have had their fill allows for an unresolved potential.

Supposedly, the angelic visit was one last test to see how that potential would resolve itself.

[RolandJS]

I believe our personal relationship with Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior determines our destination. Also, I include our acceptance of His sacrifice for our sins and His being raised for our future glorification.
I don't believe philosophy, theology or apologetics determine our destination, such simply helps or hinders our journey.
We serve God with our mind, hearts and soul - all with balance and moderation. Probably like a three-legged stool, one cannot have just one or two of the three.
ybiC, Roland

[geebob]

I don't believe philosophy, theology or apologetics determine our destination, such simply helps or hinders our journey.

amen. Apologetics and Philosophy are great but sometimes they threaten to make christianity into world-view-anity.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

02-22-2003 @ 11:40 PM
Freak:

So many of you are philosophizing, theologizing your way to hell. Your looking for answers where there is no answers. We are but human. We are beings with limited knowledge but many of you seek to philosophize, theologize with the hopes of finding the answers to your questions. Who knows? You just might find some answers but there are questions to which there is no answers.

Actually, one doesn't need philosophy or theology to get to hell; one can easily arrive there via pure ignorance....

But----philosophy = "love of wisdom," and theology = "discourse about God," so I'd say it's still possible to engage in both pursuits with Christian integrity (despite the fact that there are those who don't).