I'm back. Did you miss me?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 62
Topic's author
#1
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
While I have been away, not through cowardice as some idiots suggest, I am back. Full of life and loving the vigor that goes with this. 

I note that some there are MANY people who have asked me questions.  In lots of different topics. 

What I propose - to try and simplify things is that if people who have asked me a serious question and wish an answer I will reply here. 

I will qualify this - particularly for dub dums like Brother.  (It is true, I have no respect for it.) These questions must be genuine and in response to what I have written or others if they are serious. I will ignore you if you simply choose to act like an idiot. Yes, I know harder for some than others. 

I will NOT answer dumb questions about my profile.  I will not answer questions in relation to a different forum.  I will not answer questions in relation to debating someone since I think as the dear brother has recognized that forums give ample opportunity to debate. I am not interested in finding out who has the biggest @#$#. 

But if you desire a serious answer, I will respond as I am able. I don't know everything. I don't pretend to know everything or to have memorized everything (Stephen). 

And if no one wants to ask me a question or to reply to what they written elsewhere. That is a matter for them.  

Oh yes,  I will respond in my own time. Mostly this will be quickly. Yet, sometimes it may be delayed for external reasons.  yet I will reply. 
#2
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
These questions must be genuine.

Do you agree with the definition of the word "Genuine"?


genuine
/ˈdʒɛnjʊɪn/
adjective
  • 1.truly what something is said to be; authentic:

if they are serious. 
And do you agree with the definition of the word  "Serious"?

serious
/ˈsɪərɪəs/
adjective
  • 1.demanding or characterized by careful consideration or application:



Topic's author
#3
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I love it.  Nothing ever changes around here.  Rather than ask either a genuine or serious question you MUST ask for what I actually mean. 

Do you have a question or not? 


If not, please go away and do what you do best. 
#4
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I love it.  Nothing ever changes around here.  Rather than ask either a genuine or serious question you MUST ask for what I actually mean. 

Do you have a question or not? 


If not, please go away and do what you do best. 

So right of the bat, you have returned to true form and you are refusing to answer two genuine  and serious questions . You must think everyone here is  absolutely dumb. 

What you have done with your opening post is lay down your own ground rules where only YOU will determine and define what is a " genuine" and "serious" question. 

You need to go way for another month and come up with a better tactic, Reverend Munchausen.😂
 Meanwhile I will answer your question:


NO!
#5
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Thanks for deciding to quit feeding the trolls. 
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@ the Witch.
Thanks for deciding to quit feeding the trolls. 

I don't see a Genuine Serious question there Witch, as per OP's request. So who is doing the trolling, or as you politely put it, joining a thread " just to shit on it". 

Those hypocritical comments and double standards just keep following you around, don't they.
#7
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12, she obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"



YOUR EXACT AND REVEALING QUOTE IN YOUR INITIAL POST:   "These questions must be genuine and in response to what I have written or others if they are serious"

Welcome back the #1 COWARD Miss Tradesecret for another round of the membership making you the continued fool that you are relative to the JUDEO-Christian Bible, praise Jesus!

In your quote above, that supersedes your quote of not responding to questions if they are in a different forum, as if this matters in the first place for obvious reasons, duh, then let's test your resolve in the name of Jesus where you admitted a while back that you were a SEXUAL DEVIANT with family members as explicitly shown in this link: https://www.imagebam.com/view/ME9Q5JG

QUESTION:  Therefore, have you gotten control upon this ungodly act of your SEXUAL DEVIANCY with family members that you Satanically indulged in as previously shown in the link above, where you have to answer this question since I am following your rules as shown below from your quote above:

1. The question above is genuine, to say the least
2. It is in response to what you have written
3. Most of all, the question is most certainly serious to say the least


Miss Tradesecret, Jesus' spirit and I are just trying to help you in not being an outright HYPOCRITE in calling yourself an assumed Christian within this forum if you are still practicing your admitted SEXUAL DEVIANCY with your uncles and brothers and fathers as you disgustingly state in the link above, ewwwwwwwwww, sickening and despicable!

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)



NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT PRACTICED SEXUAL DEVIANCY WITH FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEREFORE BEING A HYPOCRITE TO JESUS' INSPIRE WORDS WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES (JUDE 1:7), WILL BE ...?



.

#8
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
QUESTION:  Therefore, have you gotten control upon this ungodly act of your SEXUAL DEVIANCY with family members that you Satanically indulged in as previously shown in the link above, where you have to answer this question since I am following your rules as shown below from your quote above:

1. The question above is genuine, to say the least
2. It is in response to what you have written
3. Most of all, the question is most certainly serious to say the least

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

He's freely admitted to "sexually experimenting" on this forum, Brother D. But don't expect a reply. 

Good post and worth the thumbs up.  
Topic's author
#9
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Thanks for deciding to quit feeding the trolls. 
Yes, I am happy to answer genuine questions people have requested to me in the past.  The fact is I have been away for a while and there are so many that I am not sure where to start. Or what has been addressed or not. This way people with genuine requests can ask and I will attempt to respond. 

But I am not going to feed the trolls intentionally. I am sure they will attempt to bait me as in the past.   And at times I will probably respond.  

but nice to see you too. 
Topic's author
#10
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Sorry Brother. Your questions don't fit the criteria.  Do you remember the word personal? 

So unless you have a real genuine question for me, please leave.  Don't waste your time nor mine. Have a good day. 
#11
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret


.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"


YOUR RUNAWAY QUOTE OF DESPAIR ONCE AGAIN IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP AND JESUS:  "Sorry Brother. Your questions don't fit the criteria. Do you remember the word personal?  So unless you have a real genuine question for me, please leave. Don't waste your time nor mine. Have a good day."

First thing, you did not deny that you are a SEXUAL DEVIANT as my post #7 that actually shows you to be, whereas we thank you dear for being honest, good girl!  In said post you obviously found yourself totally embarrassed and what it represented in your name. Those damn facts, eh?


Therefore, to once again try and follow your protocols for you to address questions to you regarding your faith, and without being personal, I present the following:

1.  What do you think of assumed Christians that are despicably amoral in being sexual deviants that practice sickening sex acts with their family members?  

2.  Since this abhorred sexual situation described above goes directly against Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, as shown below, and like you have noted all the time, these sexual deviants should be punished because knew they were going against Jesus’ inspired words, therefore they are Hell bound upon their demise!  Do you agree?

“For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” “Ephesians 5:5)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galations 5:19-21)



Miss Tradesecret, you may initiate to answer the two questions to you mentioned above. BEGIN:

.





#12
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas


@ Tradesecret.
Therefore, to once again try and follow your protocols for you to address questions to you regarding your faith, and without being personal, I present the following:

1.  What do you think of assumed Christians that are despicably amoral in being sexual deviants that practice sickening sex acts with their family members?  

2.  Since this abhorred sexual situation described above goes directly against Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, as shown below, and like you have noted all the time, these sexual deviants should be punished because knew they were going against Jesus’ inspired words, therefore they are Hell bound upon their demise!  Do you agree?

“For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” “Ephesians 5:5)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galations 5:19-21)

Those damn facts, eh?
Those damn inconvenient facts, indeed Brother D.

S/he will more than likely tell you that Q1 above is a personnel question and goes against the caveat and ground rules that s/he laid down here>>#1


#13
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Lovely ship.
#14
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
I hope your personal life is well. 

In the time of your absence, I have unleashed an unrelenting and undisputable falsification of the Christian God, which takes the following form. 

P1. All people have free will. 
P2. People in heaven do not sin.  
C1. People can have free will (by virtue of being people) and not sin (by virtue of the existence of heaven). 
P3. God created all People. 
C2. God created the People in C1. 
C3. God has created people who have free will and do not sin.
C4. God can create people who have free will and do not sin. 

Another rendition: 

P1. God is that who can institute any possible world 
P2. A world in which free will exists and no sins occur is possible (evidenced by heaven and the existence of God himself, who is presumably sinless and free) is possible
C1 God could have instituted that world 

What do you have to say about this? 
Topic's author
#15
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
I hope your personal life is well. 
Thanks for commenting. It is well at the moment thanks. I hope yours is too. 

In the time of your absence, I have unleashed an unrelenting and undisputable falsification of the Christian God, which takes the following form. 
I am glad to see you have been productive.  I say persevere to the end. It will lead to character.  

P1. All people have free will. 
Ok. But what does that mean?  Some Christians think it means free to do anything they want. Reformed folk think that there is not a logical connection between doing what one wants to do - and what one ought to do.  

P2. People in heaven do not sin.  
There is no sin in heaven.  It is not a matter of whether they do not sin. There is no sin in heaven.  And for the record we are talking about the New Heavens not the Heaven which exists right now in its current state.  After all, I would say that Adam and Eve both sinned in heaven along with the snake.   The New Heaven is also a place after sin has been dealt with comprehensively. As John puts it in Revelation 21:5 the old order has been done away with and a new day has started.  People - are now living in a different manner. 

C1. People can have free will (by virtue of being people) and not sin (by virtue of the existence of heaven). 

Non-sequitur really. People are people.  Sin is sin.  Free will is not denied on earth. The meaning of it is questioned.  Sin is missing the mark. Sin is living in rebellion against God. Sin exists on this planet in this time frame.  People in the New Heaven will not be able to sin.  In fact the New Heaven is not in this time frame. As the Garden of Eden exists before our history. So the New Heavens exists after our history.  Sin is confined to our history.  So - you premise is true only in the fact that people in the New Heaven are able to be sinless. The only person in our history who was sinless was Jesus and he was a new thing - similar to the New Heaven but as God personified here in this time frame.  He was born of virgin and his Father was the Holy Spirit.  


P3. God created all People. 
Yes he did. 

C2. God created the People in C1. 
Yes he did if you are ONLY talking about people in the New Heaven being sinless. 

C3. God has created people who have free will and do not sin.
God is not making new people in the New Heaven.  He created people in our time frame  who do sin. All people are sinners. Save and except Jesus. 

C4. God can create people who have free will and do not sin. 
Yes, he can but not flowing on from C3 as implied by you.  


 

P1. God is that who can institute any possible world 
I don't agree with this premise.   Holiness is God's chief attribute.  The world he creates - must accord with holiness in the manner in which he made it. 


P2. A world in which free will exists and no sins occur is possible (evidenced by heaven and the existence of God himself, who is presumably sinless and free) is possible
C1 God could have instituted that world 
I think God created our world - and that this was good and therefore everything else is pure speculation. I also think that God is not vindictive and he is not malicious or capricious.  Therefore he had no desire to make any other world.   

What do you have to say about this? 

thanks. 
#16
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@Bones


.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your religious questions, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"


First thing, how long is it going to take for you to address my post #11, other than to RUN AWAY from it as usual in front of the membership!  SCARED AGAIN? LOL! 


BONES QUOTE TO YOU: “God created all People.”

YOUR ANSWER: “Yes he did.”

Therefore, with your Bible stupid answer once again to Bones, tell us dear, Jesus as the serial killer Yahweh God incarnate only created the Jews, remember?  Have you read the Old Testament lately Bible fool?! Duh! (Jeremiah 31:31-33)   

Then how in the hell did Yahweh/Jesus create the person shown in the link below if ALL people were created by Yahweh/Jesus as Jews?!
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a6/df/ad/a6dfadad7b0a4716d14c69f98fae7d5b.jpg

BEGIN:

Do you want to debate me upon Yahweh/Jesus creating all people, or are you going to run away again and hide like a little school girl?



BONES QUOTE TO YOU: “God can create people who have free will and do not sin.” 

YOUR BIBLE DUMBFOUNDED ANSWER: “Yes, he can but not flowing on from C3 as implied by you.”

As the membership has seen over time, your outright Bible stupidity has no bounds!!!   Yahweh/Jesus cannot create man with free will because He controls everything regarding man, H-E-L-L-O? 

YAHWEH/JESUS SAID:  “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” (Jeremiah 29:11)

Do you want to debate me upon the "Free Will Topic," or are you going to run away again and go into EXILE as usual?



BONES QUOTE TO YOU:  “A world in which free will exists and no sins occur is possible (evidenced by heaven and the existence of God himself, who is presumably sinless and free) is possible C1 God could have instituted that world.”
 
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE ONCE AGAIN TO ANSWER BONES: “I think God created our world - and that this was good and therefore everything else is pure speculation. I also think that God is not vindictive and he is not malicious or capricious.  Therefore he had no desire to make any other world.”

WTF?!  You “think” our serial killer Yahweh/Jesus created the world? HUH? Hello, anybody home today, NOT!    The very first passage in Genesis answers your Bible ignorance: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

Do you want to debate me on how utterly Bible stupid you are at all times within this esteemed forum where you do NOT belong?


Miss Tradesecret, you have only been back a few days from your self-imposed EXILE because of being Bible Slapped Silly by myself and the membership, therefore, do you need another “break” from the action to try and save face once again like you've done before? LOL!


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT IS AS DUMBFOUNDED OF THE BIBLE AS SHE IS, WILL BE …?

.
#17
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Super ship.
Topic's author
#18
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
First thing, how long is it going to take for you to address my post #11, 
I did respond as everyone who has read this topic knows. 
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7634/post-links/329266 and given that your post immediately following that one did not change you MO I had no reason to add further. So ipso fact my previous post was also to your latter post.  You have changed you MO somewhat which is why I am also addressing this one. 

BONES QUOTE TO YOU: “God created all People.”

YOUR ANSWER: “Yes he did.”

 Have you read the Old Testament lately Bible?! (Jeremiah 31:31-33)   
Yes. 

Then how did Yahweh create the person shown in the link below if ALL people were created by Yahweh as Jews?!
My computer tells me I should not open up webpages it does not recognize. So please put it in proper format.  I also note I did not say God created all people as Jews.    

Do you want to debate me upon Yahweh  creating all people?
I thought you said in another place that we have been debating. So what is your problem? I already said I am not going to debate you formally.  Primarily because you don't really want to debate. You want to give everyone an eye strain trying to find something that is really really small.  In any event, I find you an incredibly boring and uncouth person. I will tolerate questions on this forum but for only so long. You need to show some good faith before I would ever consider debating you. 

BONES QUOTE TO YOU: “God can create people who have free will and do not sin.” 

YOUR  ANSWER: “Yes, he can but not flowing on from C3 as implied by you.”

 Yahweh cannot create man with free will because He controls everything regarding man? 

YAHWEH  SAID:  “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.” (Jeremiah 29:11)

Do you want to debate me upon the "Free Will Topic," ?
I don't have an issue with free will. Your quote from Jeremiah does not change that fact. I also hold to the fact that Jesus is fully God and fully Man. But the question of determinism v free will is an old one  that many philosophers debate.  I justify my views by using first and second causes.  I gather from previous discussions that you don't even understand that notion. Hence it would be a waste of your time and mine to formally debate it. However if you wish to informally debate it within this forum, I will do so if you cease being derogatory in your comments.  

BONES QUOTE TO YOU:  “A world in which free will exists and no sins occur is possible (evidenced by heaven and the existence of God himself, who is presumably sinless and free) is possible C1 God could have instituted that world.”
 
YOUR  QUOTE ONCE AGAIN TO ANSWER BONES: “I think God created our world - and that this was good and therefore everything else is pure speculation. I also think that God is not vindictive and he is not malicious or capricious.  Therefore he had no desire to make any other world.”

 You “think” Yahweh created the world?  The very first passage in Genesis answers [this]: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
I assume your wit here is suggesting that because I used the word "think" that somehow I have doubts. Perhaps you ought to look up the word "think" in the dictionary and perhaps EXPLORE every meaning of it. 

I have deleted every derogatory comment by you - as an example of what I would expect you to follow if you are genuinely interested in discussing further matters with me in good faith.  I will presume that if you continue with ANY derogatory language that you are conceding the point that you will not act in good faith and be genuine.   

And as such EVERY time you accuse me of running away, I will simply repeat this as evidence that it is you, not me who is not wanting to debate either formally or informally.  The challenge is there.  Yet given your history, I have no other choice. 



#19
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
P1. All people have free will. 
Ok. But what does that mean?  Some Christians think it means free to do anything they want. Reformed folk think that there is not a logical connection between doing what one wants to do - and what one ought to do.  
Free will 

  • the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

P2. People in heaven do not sin.  
There is no sin in heaven.  It is not a matter of whether they do not sin. There is no sin in heaven.
Is there no sin in heaven because it is forbid, or because people choose not to sin? 

C1. People can have free will (by virtue of being people) and not sin (by virtue of the existence of heaven). 
you premise is true only in the fact that people in the New Heaven are able to be sinless.
That's fine it doesn't matter which heaven we reference. 

C3. God has created people who have free will and do not sin.
God is not making new people in the New Heaven. 
how did they actualise then. 

C4. God can create people who have free will and do not sin. 
Yes, he can but not flowing on from C3 as implied by you.  
Nevertheless, if the conclusion is true then why didn't he create the sinless free people without the sin? 

P1. God is that who can institute any possible world 
I don't agree with this premise.   Holiness is God's chief attribute.  The world he creates - must accord with holiness in the manner in which he made it. 
This premise isn't supposed to be some riddle - it merely stipulates that God is all powerful and therefore can create any world which is logical. 

P2. A world in which free will exists and no sins occur is possible (evidenced by heaven and the existence of God himself, who is presumably sinless and free) is possible
C1 God could have instituted that world 
I think God created our world - and that this was good and therefore everything else is pure speculation.
This world is good? So you cannot conceive of any possible world in which is marginally better than ours? 
Topic's author
#20
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
P1. All people have free will. 
Ok. But what does that mean?  Some Christians think it means free to do anything they want. Reformed folk think that there is not a logical connection between doing what one wants to do - and what one ought to do.  
Free will 

  • the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill anymore than the definition defines the Christian concept of God. We understand the meaning from the bible itself.  I don't hold to the idea that freewill is something without constraint. If that is your definition then it is not the Christian definition and then your entire argument becomes irrelevant to me.  I take the view that our free will - whatever that actually means - is constrained by lots of things. I would like to fly. But I can't. I am not a bird. I would like to marry a beautiful model.  I can't because she is already married to someone else.  My free will is constrained by lots of things.  Yet I think that people can do pretty much the things they want to do  and are responsible for it as well. Hence I believe the justice system punishes people justly for breaking the law.  Yet, the biblical idea is that freewill is also constrained by the fall of man.  Hence we think people cannot freely choose God. That is one reason I challenged you ages ago to do and which you couldn't do.  The notion of freewill is notoriously difficult to define which is why there seems to be a tendency towards determinism these days. 

P2. People in heaven do not sin.  
There is no sin in heaven.  It is not a matter of whether they do not sin. There is no sin in heaven.
Is there no sin in heaven because it is forbid, or because people choose not to sin? 
In the New Heavens there is no sin. God has destroyed it completely.   People don't want to sin even if they could choose.  Their eyes have been opened to the reality of God and his power.  Christians tend to say - prior to the fall, Christians could choose to sin or not sin. After the fall we can only sin and not do good. After we are saved, we have the power to do good and sin. After the resurrection we can only do good.  

C1. People can have free will (by virtue of being people) and not sin (by virtue of the existence of heaven). 
you premise is true only in the fact that people in the New Heaven are able to be sinless.
That's fine it doesn't matter which heaven we reference. 
???

C3. God has created people who have free will and do not sin.
God is not making new people in the New Heaven. 
how did they actualise then. 
People in heaven are people who have lived on this life and then been resurrected.  They have new bodies. their old bodies which sin are cast away. In a twinkling of an eye - we are all changed. 

C4. God can create people who have free will and do not sin. 
Yes, he can but not flowing on from C3 as implied by you.  
Nevertheless, if the conclusion is true then why didn't he create the sinless free people without the sin? 

God did create people without sin.  He made them and he put them in the Garden of Eden.  They chose to rebel and sin. 


P1. God is that who can institute any possible world 
I don't agree with this premise.   Holiness is God's chief attribute.  The world he creates - must accord with holiness in the manner in which he made it. 
This premise isn't supposed to be some riddle - it merely stipulates that God is all powerful and therefore can create any world which is logical. 
I think you are suggesting that God is all powerful and therefore can make anything he (or) rather a human person can imagine.  My understanding of all powerful is not to that extent. I think it basically means "he can do whatever he chooses to do".   The other issue with you premise is that it must also deny God's omniscience.  I would say that his omniscience has led him to create this world because it was the best world of any potential scenario.  And any other scenario would have been  much worse. 

P2. A world in which free will exists and no sins occur is possible (evidenced by heaven and the existence of God himself, who is presumably sinless and free) is possible
C1 God could have instituted that world 
I think God created our world - and that this was good and therefore everything else is pure speculation.
This world is good? So you cannot conceive of any possible world in which is marginally better than ours? 
I think I have suggested that the New Heavens is a world without sin.  That is the only better world.  
#21
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill 

A confession made of one's own free will would be inadmissible to you then, considering you tell us that you are a lawyer and a Christian that represents criminals?
#22
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
P1. All people have free will. 
Ok. But what does that mean?  Some Christians think it means free to do anything they want. Reformed folk think that there is not a logical connection between doing what one wants to do - and what one ought to do.  
Free will 

  • the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill anymore than the definition defines the Christian concept of God. We understand the meaning from the bible itself.  I don't hold to the idea that freewill is something without constraint. If that is your definition then it is not the Christian definition and then your entire argument becomes irrelevant to me.  I take the view that our free will - whatever that actually means - is constrained by lots of things. I would like to fly. But I can't. I am not a bird. I would like to marry a beautiful model.  I can't because she is already married to someone else. 
You can't fly not because you are constrained by physics, not fate.  Free will refers to your "choice" of tea over coffee, the choice of walking instead of cycling. Do you believe in this postulation? 

P2. People in heaven do not sin.  
There is no sin in heaven.  It is not a matter of whether they do not sin. There is no sin in heaven.
Is there no sin in heaven because it is forbid, or because people choose not to sin? 
In the New Heavens there is no sin. God has destroyed it completely.   People don't want to sin even if they could choose.  Their eyes have been opened to the reality of God and his power.
So what's the point of our world if God could create New Heaven? The sin is needless. 

God did create people without sin.  He made them and he put them in the Garden of Eden.  They chose to rebel and sin. 
If they chose to sin then they weren't sinless were they - there was some "sinful" desire in their body which prompted them to act immorally. 

I would say that his omniscience has led him to create this world because it was the best world of any potential scenario.  And any other scenario would have been  much worse. 
So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 

I think I have suggested that the New Heavens is a world without sin.  That is the only better world.  
So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 
#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
Yep.

Why didn't Mr Omni get it right in the first place.


Though if you think about it, the necessity of heaven is a direct result of sin.

So no sin, no heaven required.

So heaven was clearly Mr Omni's secondary consideration, relative to the realisation of his initial blunder.

Creating ordinary folk with dual purpose systems, as it were.

Though why create protruding milk producing mammary gear and all the other internal procreational stuff?


And  Mr Omni then comes along a few thousand years later and f**ks a virgin.

So sin eventually got the better of Mr Perfect too.

Let's face it, sin is all about bonking.

So create the means to sin, then expect the sin Mr Hypocritical.




Though:
Just proposing a reasonable alternative, to the myths, legends and tall stories option....Perhaps it was all made up by a few blokes, a few thousand years ago. 


#24
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret



YOUR QUOTE IN POST #10: “Sorry Brother. Your questions don't fit the criteria.  Do you remember the word personal?” 

MY QUOTE IN POST #16 TO YOUR RUNAWAY POST ABOVE: “Therefore, to once again try and follow your protocols for you to address questions to you regarding your faith, and without being personal, I present the following:

Since I took my questions out of the personal range for you, as shown below, YOU STILL RAN AWAY FROM THEM!!! 

Therefore, ONCE AGAIN, the following non-personal questions that you require to you still need to be answered:

BEGIN:

1.  What do you think of assumed Christians that are despicably amoral in being sexual deviants that practice sickening sex acts with their family members?  

2.  Since this abhorred sexual situation described above goes directly against Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, and like you have noted all the time, these sexual deviants should be punished because they knew they were going against Jesus’ inspired words, therefore they are Hell bound upon their demise! 

.

#25
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen,

YOUR QUOTE TO THE BIBLE FOOL MISS TRADESECRET: "A confession made of one's own free will would be inadmissible to you then, considering you tell us that you are a lawyer and a Christian that represents criminals?"

As everyone can see once again, Miss Tradesecret has overdosed on her "Bible Stupid Pills" she takes before "trying" to answer our religious questions. As per my post #24 above, she is trying to run away again from her outright and admitted SEXUAL DEVIANCY as an assumed Christian!  I have followed her protocols and took said questions out of the "personal range" to her, and put them into a non personal range, but she still runs away from them with yet more EXCUSES as shown in her post #18! 

Ethang5 has taught her well in how to "try" and run away from her embarrassing admitted FACTS!


.


#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
@ Tradsecret:
Therefore, ONCE AGAIN, the following non-personal questions that you require to you still need to be answered:



1.  What do you think of assumed Christians that are despicably amoral in being sexual deviants that practice sickening sex acts with their family members?  

2.  Since this abhorred sexual situation described above goes directly against Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, and like you have noted all the time, these sexual deviants should be punished because they knew they were going against Jesus’ inspired words, therefore they are Hell bound upon their demise! 




I anticipate another wide swerve Brother D.

#27
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Why didn't Mr Omni get it right in the first place.?

Why did Mr perfect Omni keep destroying  only to rebuild using the same model. #1
Topic's author
#28
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill 

A confession made of one's own free will would be inadmissible to you then, considering you tell us that you are a lawyer and a Christian that represents criminals?
Hello Stephen, I paused for a moment before answering you.  I took for a moment your reference to my personal life as another insult from you. And to be perfectly honest, I still think you are attempting to be insulting here.  I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future. 

Nevertheless, I also concede that there is a question here that warrants an answer if only to snip it at the bud. 

My point to Bones is that Christian doctrine is not defined by a dictionary but by the Bible.  I have no issue with others defining free will how they choose or desire. That is entirely a matter for them.  Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as.  That is my point. 

Your contention then seems somewhat redundant doesn't it? Confessions are admissible in court. Yet it depends upon the circumstances and how it was obtained.  What is admissible in court is a different to my point to Bones. Thanks for asking so that it can be clarified. 
Topic's author
#29
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
P1. All people have free will. 
Ok. But what does that mean?  Some Christians think it means free to do anything they want. Reformed folk think that there is not a logical connection between doing what one wants to do - and what one ought to do.  
Free will 

  • the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
The dictionary does not define the Christian notion of freewill anymore than the definition defines the Christian concept of God. We understand the meaning from the bible itself.  I don't hold to the idea that freewill is something without constraint. If that is your definition then it is not the Christian definition and then your entire argument becomes irrelevant to me.  I take the view that our free will - whatever that actually means - is constrained by lots of things. I would like to fly. But I can't. I am not a bird. I would like to marry a beautiful model.  I can't because she is already married to someone else. 
You can't fly not because you are constrained by physics, not fate.  Free will refers to your "choice" of tea over coffee, the choice of walking instead of cycling. Do you believe in this postulation? 
I agree with your first sentence. That accords with my view. Free will certainly refers to choices - to do stuff that is possible and even to choices to refrain from doing stuff that is possible.   The question is whether human nature itself will stop you from doing what is possible and even if it is the right thing to do.   For example - a bank robber leaving a bank and seeing a police officer.  What ought he do? What is possible to do? To give up and hand himself in. What will he do? Fight or flee.  Human nature places a blocking mechanism on free will to do what is possible and proper.  


P2. People in heaven do not sin.  
There is no sin in heaven.  It is not a matter of whether they do not sin. There is no sin in heaven.
Is there no sin in heaven because it is forbid, or because people choose not to sin? 
In the New Heavens there is no sin. God has destroyed it completely.   People don't want to sin even if they could choose.  Their eyes have been opened to the reality of God and his power.
So what's the point of our world if God could create New Heaven? The sin is needless. 
You speak as though you believe you know all things.  Are you omniscient?  Is there anything in this universe you don't know? Given a very generous gift, I think you would know less that .05% of everything.  Are you really saying that because you find something pointless in your .05% of everything, that in the other 99.95% of everything that the answer might not be there?  Your argument is akin to an argument by silence. Nevertheless, Christians consider that since God is holy and good, that this world He created and in the manner that He has enabled it to occur, the reason for sin will be revealed.  We also are realists. We acknowledge that even if we don't have an answer for the why, sin is real.  And sin explains the state of the world and human nature. 

The New Heaven is also a symbol of maturity. Whereas the Garden of Eden is a state of rawness and immaturity.  The point may well be that God wanted humanity to grasp the notion of growing and learning.  From immaturity to maturity.  And while there are many people who hate this, it doesn't mean it's not a good thing. 


God did create people without sin.  He made them and he put them in the Garden of Eden.  They chose to rebel and sin. 
If they chose to sin then they weren't sinless were they - there was some "sinful" desire in their body which prompted them to act immorally. 
Yes, I  have heard you attempt to argue that before.  Yet it is not in accord with Christian doctrine. We say humanity was made good.  They were made without sin. Sin, you will notice, or the temptation to sin, did not arise from within the person, it arose from outside the person, in the form of whatever the serpent was.  A desire does not have to originate within a person - it can certainly. Yet sometimes like a thought - it can be planted from outside.  Thoughts come from elsewhere and are planted in a person.  A good question to follow up is Where do thoughts come from?  Jesus, who Christians consider a new thing - like Adam, was also tempted from without.  the devil came to him and despite the thoughts being put to him - Jesus rightly rejected them all. 

Part of the sinful condition - since Adam and Eve, is that sinful temptations arise from within.  This did not happen prior to then.  Once they ate the fruit - not that the fruit had magical properties, they started to determine for themselves what was right and what was wrong. their heart now being sinful was disposed towards sinning.  (Sinning here is not talking about evil and bad things like murder and lust etc, although it can certainly include such things, it is talking primarily about rebellion or treason from God, the core issue being that God is wrong and I am right. The first example given after the fall is that nakedness was bad and God had got this wrong) 


I would say that his omniscience has led him to create this world because it was the best world of any potential scenario.  And any other scenario would have been  much worse. 
So gratuitous evils, such as animal suffering in the billions, serves some good to the future? This seems wholly implausible. 
That is not what I said. God is not utilitarian. The means and the ends matter.    The point I was making is that whatever world you can imagine, it would not be better than this one for the purposes it was made. 


I think I have suggested that the New Heavens is a world without sin.  That is the only better world.  
So why not skip our world and create New Heaven? 
Just because someone wants to skip school because it contains bullies, does not mean that school is not the best option. 

Topic's author
#30
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Wow! Not perfect, still lots of disdain there.  But I can see you are trying. Hence I will give you the benefit of the doubt for this post. 


1. What do you think of assumed Christians that are despicably amoral in being sexual deviants that practice sickening sex acts with their family members?  
"assumed" Christians are not Christians.  Hence they are atheists  or something else pretending to be Christians for whatever perverse reason that might be.  That an atheist or other non-Christian would practice despicable amoral acts would be a matter for them in their own worldview and conscience.  Personally, it would depend upon the law and the culture of the time to clarify whether such acts indeed were despicable or not.  Incest in our modern Western culture is frowned upon generally, but like many other historical despicable sexual acts they are being scrutinized differently in a post modern world.  For example in Australia, adult siblings and even adult father and daughter scenarios have been put into the public arena.  The consensus is its very icky, but if they are two consenting adults and if they are practicing safe sex so no children are produced from their union - then what happens behind closed doors should remain behind closed doors.  


2.  Since this abhorred sexual situation described above goes directly against Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, and like you have noted all the time, these sexual deviants should be punished because they knew they were going against Jesus’ inspired words, therefore they are Hell bound upon their demise! 
Well that depends on many levels.  The Bible says all people are sinners and deserve the punishment of death or hell.  The good thing for everyone, including the most evil and depraved people in the world, is if they repent of their sins and cease continuing in the act, and seek forgiveness, that God in his mercy will forgive them.  This of course does not mean that don't suffer consequences in this world.  In my view - depending upon the seriousness of the evil act - forgiveness of God may well enable them to go to Heaven, where they won't sin anymore and God will make sure of that,  while they are on earth - they must be dealt with according to the laws and cultures of the time that they are living in.     In Australia, incest is still a criminal offence today. In the Middle East 3000 years ago it was not.  

So, the answer to your question is: sin will be dealt with. That will mean death and hell for many people. Yet it will also mean Jesus death for many as well.  That of course is the end.  The means in the meantime - is going to depend upon the laws and the culture of the time that these acts were committed in. If people repent of their sins, then the end will be different for those who don't repent and who relish in it.