I'm back. Did you miss me?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 62
#31
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Human nature places a blocking mechanism on free will to do what is possible and proper.  
There are restraints but would you agree or contend the idea that human free will is truer than determinism? When someone sins, do you believe they do so because of a necessary causal chain, or because of choice? 

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?
If we know .05% of all that is to be known, then our knowledge of God is one which is based in insufficient reasoning - precisely, it is based on only .05% of all facts. I know things just as how you report you know things - because they best conform to what we know. 

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. 
p1. Humans were made good. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

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. 
So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.

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. 
If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 

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. 
But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 
Topic's author
#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
Human nature places a blocking mechanism on free will to do what is possible and proper.  
There are restraints but would you agree or contend the idea that human free will is truer than determinism? When someone sins, do you believe they do so because of a necessary causal chain, or because of choice? 
What a great question.  I think perhaps you do not understand Christian Reformed theology or as some would label it, Calvinism, or else you would not have asked this question.  Reformed Folks hold to an interesting tension.  We believe in free will and we believe in determinism. For us this is akin to other tensions projected and taught by the Bible, such as the Trinity, 1 God, 3 persons. The Bible, god-breathed infallibly by God and yet written by fallible humans. The Person of Christ. Fully God and yet Fully Man.  Jesus' personhood, Jesus the man died, yet Jesus as God did not.  I could add many more.  

The point is neither free will nor determinism is truer than the other.  Both are held in tension. Hence God can create all things and plan all things and even bring things to pass.  Yet humanity is entirely responsible for their free will actions.  Reformed folk often fall back to a first cause / second cause understanding when discussing these matters. 

I don't have an issue particularly with causation - but only so far as it does not try and reduce the personal responsibility of the individual making the decision.  I can see how genetics can play a part in explaining why some people do things. Similarly I can see why circumstances, or environment might as well.  Sometimes other things come into play such as organizational structure and culture.   It is also why I have no problem with the idea that God causes all things - and yet is not the author of sin.  

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?
If we know .05% of all that is to be known, then our knowledge of God is one which is based in insufficient reasoning - precisely, it is based on only .05% of all facts. I know things just as how you report you know things - because they best conform to what we know. 
I accept the fact that we can only know God based on insufficient reasoning. Hence why I am pleased God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures.  I don't think it is really possible to know God apart from the Bible. Yes, there is a thing called general revelation, the creation around us which certainly points people who consider it properly to realize that it did not just suddenly appear out of thin air.   Yet, the most this can do is elevate our minds to know that some kind of God exists or many gods exist.  Hence, why I think every culture and nationality and people group believe in god or gods or some kind of deity throughout history.  Knowing that God exists however does not mean that you will know much more about God. This is why your comment above is accurate about insufficient reasoning.  I would suggest that the Bible - which I understand to be special revelation adds mountains of information about God. As much as is necessary for the matters we need whilst on this earth. Yet not sufficient to answer every question.  


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. 
p1. Humans were made good. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 
I am fine with p1.  I think that p2 is flawed since both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed. I also think that humanity was made immature in the sense that he was on probation. This explains the presence of trees.  I note also that the first man was not good without the woman. Something was missing.  God knew it. He wanted Adam to know it too. 

Yet I also suspect that p1 good is not being used in the way you are using gooder in p2.  You seem to be talking quality as opposed to ethically or some other characteristic.  I also suspect that the question is - not that he could have made them gooder, why didn't he make them perfect? It also brings an interesting question in relation to Jesus.  Was the only reason he did not give into temptation because his making was both divine and human? And was this God's plan all long? 

p3 is an interesting proposition.   Yet I can't agree with it yet. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by contend. It may be you mean resist.  Yet I am still not comfortable with the term "gooder".  We will have to explore that further.  If you don't mind. I'm not sure that Adam due to his immaturity was unable to resist the temptation or whether there were other factors playing into it. For instance, perhaps his love for Eve was a factor for his taking it.  He may have been  a reasonable person - but he was also a person with emotions as well.  At any event, I am still not persuaded he was in any way flawed or less gooder than he could have been.  He certainly had not yet passed the maturity test.  

p4 is true.  This is indeed what the book of Romans argue.  Adam fell yet Christ succeeded .

c1 again is probably true - but not necessarily flowing out of the above conclusions.  Jesus was a perfect person - in the sense that he was without sin.  for the bible - perfection is not defined as without flaws per se - but as without sin. 

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. 
So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.
He did make a person like Jesus.   And he will make people like Jesus. That is what redemption is all about.  And that will what the New Heavens and New earth will be like - once sin is utterly abolished.  Salvation is about changing people from sinners and turning them into people like Jesus. 


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. 
If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 
As I said above - I hold this in tension.  Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one. Otherwise we say God in his all knowing omnipotence and goodness got it wrong.   And in one sense - everything that happens is because God divinely planned it all including all of the sinful actions that take place.  But on the other hand - every human is entirely responsible for their actions. 

Humans without God would simply go about doing all these horrible things - but without a purpose - simply because they are for the most part sinful and selfish people.   And given that the world is all we have - if atheists are correct and there is no god - then we would still be doing all of these horrible and evil things anyway.   with no more purpose than whatever rational we can dream up.

Of course I believe that as people turn to Christ and start living in his ways, that more people will want to do the right thing and less people will be evil.  This will not happen overnight - but given the Spirit of God it is the aim. 


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. 
But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 
God has not given us that option.   I suppose he wanted us to learn something about good from the evil we witness. He want us to learn more about comfort from the pain we suffer. He wanted us to learn more about love from the hate we observe.  Maturity comes in lots of way. But never simply by pushing a magic button.  God is our Father.  This does not mean he wants us to suffer. But he does want us to learn.  And to grow. 
#33
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?
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. 

Which part? The part where I referenced to you being a lawyer, or the part where I referenced you being a Christian? Both are true are they not?




My point to Bones is that Christian doctrine is not defined by a dictionary but by the Bible.

Leaving you open and free to redefine just about any word you feel like redefining when it goes against the Christian grain and the Christian narrative.




  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. 

Ok, how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous? And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?


Tradesecret wrote: 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?

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. 

Well to be honest I didn't expect a different answer to the one you have given. Because you have intentionally  ignored the point where I clearly wrote ;


Stephen wrote: "A confession made of one's own free #21

Do you see that? It says - own free will -  that means not coerced, not forced and not given under duress or torture, but freely, and in the exact manner that you often give freely details of your personal life to the members of this forum . So it is not as redundant as you want it to be. 

So then- would a freely given confession be inadmissible to you?


Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as.  That is my point. 

And my point is that you simply redefine the universally accepted definitions of words when they do not fit the Christian/ YOUR narrative.  And this is why I started my first question to you by asking you;
Do you agree with the definition of the word Genuine?
And do you agree with the definition of the word  "Serious"?#2  These are both words used by you and of your own free will in your own OP Here>>#1

So, how does the Christian bible define the words - Genuine and Serious? 


Topic's author
#34
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future. 

Which part? The part where I referenced to you being a lawyer, or the part where I referenced you being a Christian? Both are true are they not?
Both if it makes you easier for you to remember.   

My point to Bones is that Christian doctrine is not defined by a dictionary but by the Bible.

Leaving you open and free to redefine just about any word you feel like redefining when it goes against the Christian grain and the Christian narrative.
Not at all.  It just means that I am using the framework of free will within the biblical reference.  If you want to discuss this with me - then that is where I will reference it to. Not to some dictionary - of which there are literally hundreds in the world.  And of which many are in contrast with each other. 

  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. 
Ok, how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous? And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?
LOL! Go and read the bible and find out for yourself.  Romans is a good place to start.  Compare it to Luther's comments. 

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. 
Well to be honest I didn't expect a different answer to the one you have given. Because you have intentionally  ignored the point where I clearly wrote ;
I have answered.  And if you didn't expect a different answer, why ask? I did not ignore any part of your question.  I said confessions are admissible in court. I also said it depends on the circumstances and how it was obtained  as to whether it is admitted.  And that is true.  

Stephen wrote: "A confession made of one's own free #21

Do you see that? It says - own free will -  that means not coerced, not forced and not given under duress or torture, but freely, and in the exact manner that you often give freely details of your personal life to the members of this forum . So it is not as redundant as you want it to be. 

So then- would a freely given confession be inadmissible to you?
I read you comments previously and it does not change my answer to you.  Your words are redundant because my point to Bones was not about admissions, freely or not and it was not to do with court.   Again, the answer is confessions can be admissible.  

You however are not really asking about a confession obtained freely or not. You are dishonestly attempting to find some way of bringing a personal statement about me into this thread.  If you continue to do so - I will simply not respond to you any more.  

Just don't THEN conflate what the individual's personal definition is with what the Christian defines it as.  That is my point. 

And my point is that you simply redefine the universally accepted definitions of words when they do not fit the Christian/ YOUR narrative.  And this is why I started my first question to you by asking you;
Do you agree with the definition of the word Genuine?
And do you agree with the definition of the word  "Serious"?#2  These are both words used by you and of your own free will in your own OP Here>>#1

So, how does the Christian bible define the words - Genuine and Serious? 

As I indicated to you in my first response in this thread, you are not interested in serious or genuine conversations.  You are looking for ways to try and dupe me into permitting you to raise issues which are off limits.  Continue this line - and I will not respond to you any further. 
#35
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future. 

Which part? The part where I referenced to you being a lawyer, or the part where I referenced you being a Christian? Both are true are they not?
Both if it makes you easier for you to remember.  

 I can never forget your previous glorifying of yourself. And will always raise the point/s when given cause to do so. 

My point to Bones is that Christian doctrine is not defined by a dictionary but by the Bible.

Leaving you open and free to redefine just about any word you feel like redefining when it goes against the Christian grain and the Christian narrative.
Not at all.  It just means that I am using the framework of free will within the biblical reference.
No you are not. You are attempting to close down debate of anything that falls outside your Christian narrative. And although you ask not to ask you anything "personal", this hasn't stopped you giving your personal, thoughts, guesses and opinions ( not to mention speaking for "we Christians" . 


If you want to discuss this with me - then that is where I will reference it to. Not to some dictionary - of which there are literally hundreds in the world.

 As there are bibles . One bible will use the subtle word " Knew/know /knowing  to mean sexual intercourse while others are  blatantly obvious

ex:
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.Matthew 1:25 King James Version.

 But did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named  Jesus.Matthew 1:25 New English Translation



But kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.Matthew 1:25 New American Standard Bible


But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus.Matthew 1:25 Contemporary English Version

But they all mean "knew",/ sexual intercourse, don't they?  Where as the dictionary will always define words uniformly.


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. 
Well to be honest I didn't expect a different answer to the one you have given. Because you have intentionally  ignored the point where I clearly wrote ;

I did not ignore any part of your question.  I said confessions are admissible in court.

 But added, saying it depends on how the confession was obtained although I had clearly said confessions given of one's own free will.



You however are not really asking about a confession obtained freely or not.

 Oh stop it. My question is clear, concise," genuine and serious". Read it again and stop trying to create an argument where one doesn't exist. #21



  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. 
Ok, how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous? And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?
LOL! Go and read the bible and find out for yourself. 
I fail to see the comical side to my genuine and serious questions concerning the  subject that you tell us often that you are professionally trained and authorised to speak about..
But again, we have another outright refusal to answer a genuine and serious question/s that you demanded in your OP.  You imply you want to keep all questions to the realms of the bible  since it is your first source..
And haven't you made it clear that you only take your understandings and meanings of words" from the bible itself"?#20  and not "some dictionary"?

I am not asking you for the definitions of these words given in "some dictionary". I asked you questions that are well inside your own capacity and the dictates and the requirements that you set down in your original post yourself, namely:

[1] 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. 
[2]  These questions must be genuine and in response to what I have written .or others if they are serious. #1

So does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous? And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until  we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?









 



Topic's author
#36
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
I request that you refrain from talking of my personal life in the future. 
I can never forget your previous glorifying of yourself. And will always raise the point/s when given cause to do so. 
So I guess your trajectory has revealed itself.  Even after I told you not to. 

I am just going to stop in any of your posts as soon as you hit that point.  



#37
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Your  little ploy of trying to close down and stifle genuine debate  hasn't worked , so you return to your  default position and ignore your own dictates.

Are you going to answer these questions or not?






You however are not really asking about a confession obtained freely or not.

 Oh stop it. My question is clear, concise," genuine and serious". Read it again and stop trying to create an argument where one doesn't exist. #21



And haven't you made it clear  above on this thread that you only take your understandings and meanings of words" from the bible itself"?#20  and not "some dictionary"?

I am not asking you for the definitions of these words given in "some dictionary". I asked you questions that are well inside your own capacity and the dictates and the requirements that you set down in your original post yourself, namely:

[1] 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. 
[2]  These questions must be genuine and in response to what I have written .or others if they are serious. #1

So how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until  we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?









Topic's author
#38
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Your  little ploy of trying to close down and stifle genuine debate  hasn't worked , so you return to your  default position and ignore your own dictates.
It's not a ploy of closing down debate. It is a commitment to stop you and Brother from trolling and making personal attacks.  If you don't get that yet, then perhaps it is time for you to go and find another forum.  Again given your trajectory, it is time to stop. 
#39
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
We believe in free will and we believe in determinism.
  • Determinism entails that, in a situation in which a person makes a certain decision or performs a certain action, it is impossible that he or she could have made any other decision or performed any other action.
  • Free will is the supposed power or capacity of humans to make decisions or perform actions independently of any prior event or state of the universe.
What you hold to is a tautological impossibility. It's a dichotomy to maintain either my will is authored by myself, or a result of past causes. 

I accept the fact that we can only know God based on insufficient reasoning. Hence why I am pleased God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. 
Your conclusion that god revealed himself through Scripture is based on insufficient reasoning. How do you know it's the right scripture? And even if it were right, the "rightness" would only conform to 0.05% of all possible knowledge. 

p1. Humans were made good. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 
I am fine with p1.  I think that p2 is flawed since both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed.
It's not possible to affirm only one of p1 or p2. Being made good in this context necessarily entails that one couldn't be any better, for if it were conceivable, then the conception itself would have been what God create. Either God created ultimately moral people or he did not. 

p3 is an interesting proposition.   Yet I can't agree with it yet. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by contend. It may be you mean resist. Yet I am still not comfortable with the term "gooder".  We will have to explore that further.  If you don't mind.
I think resist is a good term to use. Is it not trivial that a person who resists the urge to be evil is better than person who cannot? A person who caves in to their desire to steal is less moral than a person who uses rationality to conclude that it is wrong. 

c1 again is probably true - but not necessarily flowing out of the above conclusions. 
If he could, then what benefit does creating these sinning people. Another topic I have been pondering is why God created in the first place. It is an issue, as I see it. 

p1. God is infinitely good, that is, God's essence is that which could not be any better. 
p2. God creating humans does not make reality any better. 
c1. There was no point in creating people. 

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. 
So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.
He did make a person like Jesus. 
My question isn't whether he made a couple people like Jesus, but rather why didn't he create the population as he did Jesus? What is the point of all these sinning people? We have established that "free will" is not a defence for sin, so what's the point?

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. 
If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 
As I said above - I hold this in tension.  Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one.
So then you would affirm that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory. 

But on the other hand - every human is entirely responsible for their actions. 
This entails free will then - people are the authors of their own actions. 



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. 
But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 
God has not given us that option.   I suppose he wanted us to learn something about good from the evil we witness.
God could have instilled that wisdom into our minds, just as how he intils intuition. 
Topic's author
#40
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
What you hold to is a tautological impossibility. It's a dichotomy to maintain either my will is authored by myself, or a result of past causes. 
Only if I wish to maintain a distinct cultural Western view of logic. I am not bound to such an idol.  (Edward de Bono would call that logic rock logic.) As I said, previously, I acknowledge this tension. And not just in respect to free will / determinism but to other more important concepts. 

I accept the fact that we can only know God based on insufficient reasoning. Hence why I am pleased God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. 
Your conclusion that god revealed himself through Scripture is based on insufficient reasoning. How do you know it's the right scripture? And even if it were right, the "rightness" would only conform to 0.05% of all possible knowledge. 
It's based on as much information as we use ordinarily for most books of history and their authencity.  there is internal evidence and external evidence blah blah.  I have said before if God is going to produce a book -he is going to make sure that in this book - he says I wrote it.  The fact is - the number of religious books which don't declare it was written by their god is staggering. There are only a very small number makes this claim.  the OT, The NT, The book of Mormon and perhaps one other.  This self declaration is missing in others.  Of course - declaring such a thing does not make it God's book.  But not saying it - allows us to deduct it is not. 


p1. Humans were made good. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 
I am fine with p1.  I think that p2 is flawed since both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed.
It's not possible to affirm only one of p1 or p2. Being made good in this context necessarily entails that one couldn't be any better, for if it were conceivable, then the conception itself would have been what God create. Either God created ultimately moral people or he did not. 

I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2.  What God does is for his own purposes.  Hence anything I add is speculation. God made man good. But by making woman out of man - what he made became very good.  Is that not gooder? I don't use the term good as perfect.  Nor am I suggesting that good is flawed. I have said on a couple of times that humanity was created immature.  In an immature Garden.  I don't see a baby as flawed - even though it is immature and not everything it could be.  There is an interesting discussion to be had by the contrast with Adam and Christ.  God made Adam immature but in an adult body.  Yet Christ was born as a baby.   Is there any sense in that being born as a baby without sin and then growing up in the wiles of life gave him an advantage over someone who think they have got it all already. Even as an immature person in an adult body.  Again I think you are mixing good as quality verses good as in relation to maturity.  

p3 is an interesting proposition.   Yet I can't agree with it yet. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by contend. It may be you mean resist. Yet I am still not comfortable with the term "gooder".  We will have to explore that further.  If you don't mind.
I think resist is a good term to use. Is it not trivial that a person who resists the urge to be evil is better than person who cannot? A person who caves in to their desire to steal is less moral than a person who uses rationality to conclude that it is wrong. 
Let's work with resist then.  Still considering it. But it is a useful term. I am not understanding why the use of trivial. Are you suggesting God is being trivial? Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why? The reasons are plethora. If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil? If it is not justified then the resisting is not really resisting - it is actively engaging, is it not? You final sentence with respect smacks of elitism.  Most people steal not out of  premeditation but out of of opportunity.  Similarly most murders are crimes of passion not premeditation.

c1 again is probably true - but not necessarily flowing out of the above conclusions. 
If he could, then what benefit does creating these sinning people.
God does not create sinning people. God created  people without sin.  People sinned. That God knew they would sin is neither here nor there.  God is not going to punish someone or not create someone just because in the future they are going to something bad.  That would make God malicious and capricious.  God judges people according to what they do - not according to what they might do.  

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it.  God is not a utilitarian god. His ethics and morality is not based on outcomes.   I have sinned.  I have experienced the pain that goes with that. Yet I have also experienced God's grace and forgiveness as well.  If I had never sinned, that grace would be something I could never experience. That is a benefit for me. The bible tells us that the angels - who never sin watch the preachers every week in order to try and grasp the grace of Jesus' gospel for themselves. They can't and don't understand it - even though they know it is marvelous and very good.   A person who has never struggled misses out on so much life. 


Another topic I have been pondering is why God created in the first place. It is an issue, as I see it. 

p1. God is infinitely good, that is, God's essence is that which could not be any better. 
p2. God creating humans does not make reality any better. 
c1. There was no point in creating people. 
I think you miss the essence of life in that statement.   The conclusion is also a non-sequitur.   By suggesting "there is no point" assumes that God is only about making life better.  Or that God is driven by outcomes. 


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. 
So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.
He did make a person like Jesus. 
My question isn't whether he made a couple people like Jesus, but rather why didn't he create the population as he did Jesus? What is the point of all these sinning people? We have established that "free will" is not a defence for sin, so what's the point?
What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 

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. 
If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 
As I said above - I hold this in tension.  Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one.
So then you would affirm that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory. 
I'm sure I have answered that question.  I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.   Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory. 

But on the other hand - every human is entirely responsible for their actions. 
This entails free will then - people are the authors of their own actions. 
Yes. 

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. 
But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 
God has not given us that option.   I suppose he wanted us to learn something about good from the evil we witness.
God could have instilled that wisdom into our minds, just as how he intils intuition. 
would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect.  The problem with robots is that they can't love freely. 

God didn't make us robots.  He has given us wisdom. In person in the person of Christ and in his word, the bible.  Most choose to rely upon their own wisdom and find every justification to reject God and his wisdom.  
#41
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
And haven't you made it clear  above on this thread that you only take your understandings and meanings of words" from the bible itself"?#20  and not "some dictionary"?

I am not asking you for the definitions of these words given in "some dictionary". I asked you questions that are well inside your own capacity and the dictates and the requirements that you set down in your original post yourself, namely:

Tradsecret wrote:[1] 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. 
Tradsecret wrote:[2]  These questions must be genuine and in response to what I have written .or others if they are serious. #1

So how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until  we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?



 It is a commitment to stop you and Brother from trolling and making personal attacks.

There is no personal attack made by me on  this thread. You are just desperate to avoid the questions even if it means breaking rules set down by yourself.

And again you refuse to answer a single question although they are totally in the bounds of your own caveat.

I don't mind  those questions sitting there showing the members that you will break your own rules if it means not having to answer.. 

I will now sit back and watch you unravel as you normally do when under the slightest pressure.




Topic's author
#42
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
There is no personal attack made by me on  this thread. You are just desperate to avoid the questions even if it means breaking rules set down by yourself.
Stop Stephen, breathe, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.  breath again.

I'm not desperate. I told you if make this about me - which is what you are doing - even though you are denying it, that I would shut down the conversation with you. 

The very fact that I have told you that those questions are not serious questions by you because you want to know - and yet you continue to push anyway - is demonstration that you have your own agenda.  I'm not playing. 

#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
The very fact that I have told you that those questions are not serious questions by you because you want to know - and yet you continue to push anyway - is demonstration that you have your own agenda.  

BULLSHIT! Reverend.  This is what I wrote very early on in this thread concerning your Weasley dictates that you laid down here> #1 and are now backpaddled on  :

Stephen wrote: 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. #4



   You are now simply attempting to bury my genuine and serious questions that are completely in the bounds of your OWN caveat  under a pile of posts.

 So how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until  we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?


 LOOK, Just simply stop responding to me if your intent is to keep refusing to answer my questions that are clearly in the bounds of your own fkn dictates, you sanctimonious, contradictory, backpaddling whining little tart . Its not fkn hard.





Topic's author
#44
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
LOOK, Just simply stop responding to me if your intent is to keep refusing to answer my questions that are clearly in the bounds of your own fkn dictates, you sanctimonious, contradictory, backpaddling whining little tart . Its not fkn hard.
Nothing personal there is there? 
#45
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
LOOK, Just simply stop responding to me if your intent is to keep refusing to answer my questions that are clearly in the bounds of your own fkn dictates, you sanctimonious, contradictory, backpaddling whining little tart . Its not fkn hard.
Nothing personal there is there? 

There is now, and  you are derailing your own thread . 



Topic's author
#46
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
So how does "the Christian bible" define the word - righteous?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - blameless?

And how does "the Christian bible" define the word - perfect?

And although mankind's fall means we will remain sinful does this mean we will not ever be perfect until  we accept Jesus, the resurrection and die?
I pointed you to the book of Romans didn't I? 

LOL! Go and read the bible and find out for yourself.  Romans is a good place to start.  Compare it to Luther's comments. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7634/post-links/329868
I said the bible defines these words for me. What you should do is go and have a look at how the bible uses these terms and then apply them to a context you are wishing to use.  Righteous for example is used in lots of different ways depending on the context.  If I just simply produce a definition for you - you would look and find a context where it obviously doesn't fit and use it for an a-ha moment.  That is your history.  That is how you do things. 

I am happy to point you in a general direction. But the fact is - you are a smart person. You think I am wrong. Hence, it seems your purpose is to prove me wrong. Now I know you will deny that - but really?  

If they are genuine and serious questions as you suggest they are, then you would take up this offer and see what you come up with.  To throw it back at me without doing so - well is evidence that you are not genuine.  
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Just as I predicated.

You have shown that you have absolutely no intention of answering simple questions, even those that fall well within the parameters of your own bullshite dictates. OR  as they are referred to in the legal - "get- out clauses".. as you yourself set out in post 1here  #1.  You are a fkn clown Reverend Munchausen. 

 That is good enough for me.

 I am content now with sitting back and watching you spew more of your "personal" guesses, thoughts, opinions AND conjecture  while breaking your own caveats at the same time and while also denying other members the same curtesy. 😂
Topic's author
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Just as I predicated.
Well glad not to disappoint.  

I'm not playing your little games. Good to see you finally understand. 
#49
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
What you hold to is a tautological impossibility. It's a dichotomy to maintain either my will is authored by myself, or a result of past causes. 
Only if I wish to maintain a distinct cultural Western view of logic.
It's not western logic - logic is logic. Either 

  • you author your actions. 
  • you don't. 
There's no third option, it's a true dichotomy rendered valid by the law of excluded middle.  

I accept the fact that we can only know God based on insufficient reasoning. Hence why I am pleased God chose to reveal himself through the Scriptures. 
Your conclusion that god revealed himself through Scripture is based on insufficient reasoning. How do you know it's the right scripture? And even if it were right, the "rightness" would only conform to 0.05% of all possible knowledge. 
It's based on as much information as we use ordinarily for most books of history and their authencity. 
You said before that I can't come to conclusions because I only possess a fraction of possible information, yet somehow you can come to conclusions? 

p1. Humans were made good. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made any "gooder". 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "gooder" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "gooder" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 
I am fine with p1.  I think that p2 is flawed since both the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil existed.
It's not possible to affirm only one of p1 or p2. Being made good in this context necessarily entails that one couldn't be any better, for if it were conceivable, then the conception itself would have been what God create. Either God created ultimately moral people or he did not. 
I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2. 
Well I don't know how to explain it then. If something is good, suggests that being "gooder" is logically incoherent, for if something "gooder" were possible, then that "gooder" would be the standard for good. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?
It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?
If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 

c1 again is probably true - but not necessarily flowing out of the above conclusions. 
If he could, then what benefit does creating these sinning people.
God does not create sinning people. God created  people without sin.  People sinned.
p1. People sin because they possess a desire to sin. 
p2. Desires are manifested from the brain. 
p3. God created brains. 
c1. God created people's desire to sin

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 
I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 



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. 
So if Jesus was a "free" man who rejected all sin, why couldn't God make people like Jesus? That would be a true utopia - free will individual who chose only to do what is good.
He did make a person like Jesus. 
My question isn't whether he made a couple people like Jesus, but rather why didn't he create the population as he did Jesus? What is the point of all these sinning people? We have established that "free will" is not a defence for sin, so what's the point?
What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 
What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 


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. 
If our world is the best possible world, then would you agree that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory? If we live in the best possible world, and in this world there are street mugging and whatnot, then the street muggings and whatnot must be apart of what makes this the best possible world. WIthout the muggings, it would not be as good. 
As I said above - I hold this in tension.  Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one.
So then you would affirm that every murder which occurs is not only morally acceptable, but morally obligatory. 
I'm sure I have answered that question.  I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.   Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory. 
But God created a world in which, as you stated, is the best possible world, which entails that every occurence is also the best possible of all outcomes. 

But on the other hand - every human is entirely responsible for their actions. 
This entails free will then - people are the authors of their own actions. 
Yes. 
So you do believe in free will then? 

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. 
But if the option of skipping school involved you being transferred into heaven, which is supposed to have all the "goods" of this world and much more, then yes I would take that option for there would tautologically be no harm in doing so. 
God has not given us that option.   I suppose he wanted us to learn something about good from the evil we witness.
God could have instilled that wisdom into our minds, just as how he intils intuition. 
would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect.  The problem with robots is that they can't love freely. 
There is NO WAY you're using the free will defence to defend sins. The entire point of my argument is that we can be sinless and free at the same time. You can still love freely even if you don't possess the desire to sin. 
Topic's author
#50
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
It's not western logic - logic is logic. Either 

  • you author your actions. 
  • you don't. 
There's no third option, it's a true dichotomy rendered valid by the law of excluded middle.  
Yes. Western Logic.  I am surprised you are rejecting Eastern logic.   I don't have to and I am not going to. 

It's based on as much information as we use ordinarily for most books of history and their authencity. 
You said before that I can't come to conclusions because I only possess a fraction of possible information, yet somehow you can come to conclusions? 
Are you saying that because you cannot come to a particular conclusion that it is impossible for anyone else to do so?  I did start to articular my reasoning and then realized it would take an entire page - so I stopped and reset my sentence.  

I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2. 
Well I don't know how to explain it then. If something is good, suggests that being "gooder" is logically incoherent, for if something "gooder" were possible, then that "gooder" would be the standard for good. 
Use a different word then. gooder is not an English word anyway.  good better best.  something that can good but not gooder.  but it can be better. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?
It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 
Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?
If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 
Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil?  If God justifies everything he does, whatever we might think about it, would that mean it is not evil?  And if that is the case, even if we could never find out?  And if he is able to justify why he doesn't tell us, then on what basis would be able to say he was evil? 


God does not create sinning people. God created  people without sin.  People sinned.
p1. People sin because they possess a desire to sin. 
p2. Desires are manifested from the brain. 
p3. God created brains. 
c1. God created people's desire to sin
People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 


I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 
I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 
God did not create sin.    Sin is not a thing that can be created.  Sin exists - but not in an objective thing you can pick up.  Sin is defined as an action or omission against the law of God.  Humans brought sin into the world.   God can't go against himself. Humans do. 


What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 
What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 
This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin.  And to enable us to understand the meaning of grace. 

I'm sure I have answered that question.  I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.   Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory. 
But God created a world in which, as you stated, is the best possible world, which entails that every occurence is also the best possible of all outcomes. 
I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   We can do better.  God can't do better true. But we can.  You are going to have to drill down into this thought. I feel it is a good one. I am just struggling to see where you are going with it. 


So you do believe in free will then? 
Yes, I have been pretty clear about that.   I don't hold to the view that God can be totally sovereign and free will are mutually exclusive.  I call it covenantal logic. It doesn't fit with Western rock logic - you know - your excluded middles.    If humanity is not personally responsible for their sins and actions then this puts it all on God.    The bible disagrees with this and thereby so do I.  I do hold to a position of first causes and second causes.   God is the first Cause and God and everything else can be the second cause at various times and places.   For anything to happen requires both the first and second cause.   


would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect.  The problem with robots is that they can't love freely. 
There is NO WAY you're using the free will defence to defend sins. The entire point of my argument is that we can be sinless and free at the same time. You can still love freely even if you don't possess the desire to sin. 
I know what your argument is - or well I am trying to understand it. I don't agree with it so far.   The New Heaven is the only place where we will be sinless and free at the same time.  Sins are human by nature.  God cannot create sin.  God is not the author of sin.  Sin is not a thing you can pick up or put down. Sin is an action. Or an omission.  Sin is also defined as "falling short of the mark".  The mark is what God does.  Hence, it is impossible logically to fall short of his own actions.  

Sin occurs sometimes by desire and at other times completely without desire. Desire is not a common factor of all sins.  You will need to find another common factor.  Start with pride perhaps, autonomy, master of my own fate, captain of my own soul.  authority.  

the term anti-Christ can mean he who is against Christ.  The other usage of the word anti - is "in place of".  Hence the anti-christ is he who wants to be in the place of Christ.  I think this is what sin is directed towards- putting ourselves in the place of God.  We want to be our own God. We want to make God in our image. And to create our own worlds and to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong.  
#51
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
It's not western logic - logic is logic. Either 

  • you author your actions. 
  • you don't. 
There's no third option, it's a true dichotomy rendered valid by the law of excluded middle.  
Yes. Western Logic.  I am surprised you are rejecting Eastern logic.   I don't have to and I am not going to. 
So do you ignore the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Identity?  

I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2. 
Well I don't know how to explain it then. If something is good, suggests that being "gooder" is logically incoherent, for if something "gooder" were possible, then that "gooder" would be the standard for good. 
Use a different word then. gooder is not an English word anyway.  good better best.  something that can good but not gooder.  but it can be better. 
p1. Humans were made morally perfect. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made more morally better. 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "morally better" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "morally better" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?
It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 
Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 
I'm sorry what is the point of that digression? I was making a very simple point, that is, if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?
If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 
Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 
Give me an example of something which is morally justified but still evil.

God does not create sinning people. God created  people without sin.  People sinned.
p1. People sin because they possess a desire to sin. 
p2. Desires are manifested from the brain. 
p3. God created brains. 
c1. God created people's desire to sin
People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 
Ok, but would you agree that the syllogism is true if I added, on balance, in front of each statement? You would agree that most evils are a result of a desire to do something? 

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 
I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 
God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 
It is. Sin is a result of the actualisation of some desires. Those desires were created by God. 

What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 
What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 
This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 
You ignored the original point. Why can't God create everyone like he created Jesus. What harm would there be? 

I'm sure I have answered that question.  I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.   Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory. 
But God created a world in which, as you stated, is the best possible world, which entails that every occurence is also the best possible of all outcomes. 
I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   
You literally said "Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one"

would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect.  The problem with robots is that they can't love freely. 
There is NO WAY you're using the free will defence to defend sins. The entire point of my argument is that we can be sinless and free at the same time. You can still love freely even if you don't possess the desire to sin. 
I know what your argument is - or well I am trying to understand it. I don't agree with it so far.   The New Heaven is the only place where we will be sinless and free at the same time. \
p1. God is that who can actualise any possible world. (True via tautology. God is, by definition, that who can do all that is possible [omnipotence])
p2. New Heaven is a possible world (true because you said. It's literally the end goal for humanity so it must be possible)
c1. Therefore, God could have created New Heaven, without the need for preceding worlds

Topic's author
#52
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones

So do you ignore the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Identity?  
No, not at all. I am just not slavishly blind to it that I don't see other methods of logic.  Western logic is powerful but it is not infallible.  It falls down at different levels.  A useful tool, but not the only tool in the logic bag. 
Use a different word then. gooder is not an English word anyway.  good better best.  something that can good but not gooder.  but it can be better. 
p1. Humans were made morally perfect. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made more morally better. 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "morally better" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "morally better" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 
p.1 If you are saying that they are made without sin.  Yes I would agree. 
p.2 If you are saying that it makes no sense that a human could be made even more so "without sin", then I guess that makes sense.  It seems to be that p1 and p2 are essentially the same thing.  Either a human is made with out sin or with sin.   It is like saying this is pure white.  It is inconceivable that anything could be even more pure white. 
p.3 You need to actually justify that assertion.   I don't accept at face value that just because someone resists temptation that this makes someone morally better. It may be true or not. It may be true sometimes and sometimes not. 
p.4 This is true. 
c.1 can only follow if there can properly distinguish between p1 and p 2 and you are able to justify p 3. 
Hence - your assertion that a contradiction arises is not yet proved. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?
It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 
Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 
I'm sorry what is the point of that digression? I was making a very simple point, that is, if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.
the point is you have not defined evil.   What you think is evil might be different to what Hitler thinks is evil.  If your point is that a morally deficient persons lacks some essence, then you need to say that more clearly.  What is this essence you are talking about? 
If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?
If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 
Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 
Give me an example of something which is morally justified but still evil.
I didn't use the word "morally", I just said justified.   but a person could justify stealing a loaf of bread to feed her children.  A government could morally justify destroying a whole city to save a whole country.  These are utilitarian outcomes - and justifiable although I think personally the second one is not morally justified. The first one - depending upon the circumstances.   the problem for you - which you need to be able to explain - is whether evil is objective or subjective and furthermore - what determines what is morally justified or not?  What is the measure of morally justified?



People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 
Ok, but would you agree that the syllogism is true if I added, on balance, in front of each statement? You would agree that most evils are a result of a desire to do something? 
no I am not in agreement.  Sin for me - is both the action and the omission. I actually think most people sin more by not doing what they should be doing as opposed to committing direct sins.  For me - the 2 commands are love God and love others.   People most often fall down loving others by failing to do stuff - not by punching them in the nose.   The Failure to something is not normally desire, but opportunity, neglect, selfish behaviour, recklessness, thoughlessness. Etc. 

Putting "on balance" in the front is not going to do it. 

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 
I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 
God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 
It is. Sin is a result of the actualisation of some desires. Those desires were created by God. 
No - not correct.  Sin is an action or an omission.  It is a falling short of doing the right thing.   God does not create a desire to sin.   


What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 
What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 
This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 
You ignored the original point. Why can't God create everyone like he created Jesus. What harm would there be? 
In the first place - Jesus is God, so it is impossible to create God. God is eternal. In the second place, God did make humans already without sin.  You tell me whether there was any harm in making them - 


I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   
You literally said "Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one"
Yes, I did.  And I hold to that.  What I am saying is that this does not mean that everything is obligatory. 


p1. God is that who can actualise any possible world. (True via tautology. God is, by definition, that who can do all that is possible [omnipotence])
p2. New Heaven is a possible world (true because you said. It's literally the end goal for humanity so it must be possible)
c1. Therefore, God could have created New Heaven, without the need for preceding worlds
Ok. so where does that leave us?  God can do anything that is possible.  Although I would also say that omnipotence also means God can do everything that is possible and what ever he desires to do.  

The fact is - God chose this world - in its current state.  That is the reality.  He must have had his reasons.  Therefore your c1 is false - since there was a need. 

I think there are many explanations in the bible as to why.  Many of those are to do with Jesus.  Many of those are to do with his grace and love for this world and his Son.   

c1 - contains the word need which is not part of the premises.  



#53
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 QUOTE IN POST #54 THAT IS DECEIVING AS USUAL:  “I haven't taken off before - to ever do homework for you old boy.  I actually can't think of anything you have EVER said that has made me even consider doing some extra reading.”  

Dear, unfortunately for you within this forum, you continue to RUN AWAY from formal debate with me because you are to SCARED because I will explicitly and truly show the membership in just how Bible stupid you really are, as shown in the following links:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=17&post_number=405

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=18&post_number=440 

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=478

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7473-contrary-to?page=2&post_number=27

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7473-contrary-to?page=2&post_number=28



At your embarrassment again, of what's new, nothing, the following are recent posts to you by me that you continue to RUN AWAY from in front of the membership and Jesus (Hebrews 4:13) because your Biblical ignorance cannot save you in "trying" to respond to them:

Running away 10 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7634-i-m-back-did-you-miss-me?page=1&post_number=11

Running away 19 days and counting:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7587-atheists-are-cowards?page=7&post_number=159

Running away 32 days and counting:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=492

Running away 32 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=485

Running away 36 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=486

Running away 36 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=19&post_number=472

Running away 26 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=492

Running away 26 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=491

Running away 30 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=486

Running away 30 days and  counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=485


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT HAS TO RUN AWAY FROM JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS BECAUSE OF HER OVERWHELMING BIBLE STUPIDITY, WILL BE ...?

.
Topic's author
#54
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You do realize don't you?  I don't run away from your posts.  I keep coming back and "let the record show", I continue to set up topics so that we might discuss any real theological questions you might have.    I am not interested in answering your lies and your intentional slurs on me.  If I choose not to answer those questions - it is not a question of running, it is an issue of "it's not worth it". and I don't give a toss about your stupid ideas.

Looking at your post above - I didn't even once go to a page linked.  I could care less. 

I have started two posts for you to contribute and so far you have given nothing but weak nonsense. Why would I bother going to any other link when you can't even bother with these two?
#55
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
A straightforward couple of questions.

A. What exactly is sin?

B. How and why was/were such conclusions decided upon?
#56
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
So do you ignore the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Identity?  
No, not at all. I am just not slavishly blind to it that I don't see other methods of logic.  Western logic is powerful but it is not infallible.  It falls down at different levels.  A useful tool, but not the only tool in the logic bag. 
So you accept some, but the excluded middle just didn't make the cut? 

For reference, the following is the syllogism.

p1. Humans were made morally perfect. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made more morally better. 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "morally better" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "morally better" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

p.1 If you are saying that they are made without sin.  Yes I would agree. 
I'm making a much more specific claim. I am claiming God made them good to a degree where making them more morally good would be impossible. 

p.2 If you are saying that it makes no sense that a human could be made even more so "without sin", then I guess that makes sense. 

p.3 You need to actually justify that assertion.   I don't accept at face value that just because someone resists temptation that this makes someone morally better. It may be true or not. It may be true sometimes and sometimes not. 
The premise is literally "if you are more moral, you are more moral. If you are not, than you are not".

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?
It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 
Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 
I'm sorry what is the point of that digression? I was making a very simple point, that is, if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.
the point is you have not defined evil.   
That which ought not be done. Is it true then that  if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?
If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 
Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 
Give me an example of something which is morally justified but still evil.
I didn't use the word "morally", I just said justified.   but a person could justify stealing a loaf of bread to feed her children. 
That's not evil then is it. If it is the cse that someone ought steal a loaf of bread to save her child, then it can't be evil, for if it were evil, then the person ought not have done it. 




People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 
Ok, but would you agree that the syllogism is true if I added, on balance, in front of each statement? You would agree that most evils are a result of a desire to do something? 
no I am not in agreement.  Sin for me - is both the action and the omission. I actually think most people sin more by not doing what they should be doing as opposed to committing direct sins.  For me - the 2 commands are love God and love others.   People most often fall down loving others by failing to do stuff - not by punching them in the nose.   The Failure to something is not normally desire, but opportunity, neglect, selfish behaviour, recklessness, thoughlessness. Etc. 

Putting "on balance" in the front is not going to do it. 
Ok, so the nature of sin is that either 

  • You do it by your desire, that is, you will it to happen. 
  • You do not do it by your desire, that is, you do not will it to happen. 
On balance, which do you think accounts more for human sin. 





I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 
I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 
God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 
It is. Sin is a result of the actualisation of some desires. Those desires were created by God. 
No - not correct.  Sin is an action or an omission.  It is a falling short of doing the right thing.   God does not create a desire to sin.   
But "falling short of God" requires certain actions, the least that is required for sin is at least some movement. So that actualization of that movement, which is sinful, is a result of a desire to actualise that action, which is a result of God creating people in a way which they desire to actualize sinful desires. 


What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 
What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 
This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 
You ignored the original point. Why can't God create everyone like he created Jesus. What harm would there be? 
In the first place - Jesus is God, so it is impossible to create God. God is eternal.
But Jesus had a physical form. He bled and he sweat and presumably he felt pain, unless he lied to us. So why not make people like him? Sure, you can take out the eternal part, but just copy the "coding" for which resulted in his "sinlessness" into everyone else. If Jesus is a person who is possible (his apparent existence proves that) then God could have just created more people like him. 


I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   
You literally said "Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one"
Yes, I did.  And I hold to that.  What I am saying is that this does not mean that everything is obligatory. 
But if you said it's the best possible world, then every action which occurs is an enhancement of our "best possible world". So that means when Hitler killed the Jews, that was apart of the "best possible world". If you say that "Hitler shouldn't have killed the Jews", then you would be proposing a possible world in which is better than ours, that is, a world in which Hitler did not do what he did. 

p1. God is that who can actualise any possible world. (True via tautology. God is, by definition, that who can do all that is possible [omnipotence])
p2. New Heaven is a possible world (true because you said. It's literally the end goal for humanity so it must be possible)
c1. Therefore, God could have created New Heaven, without the need for preceding worlds
Ok. so where does that leave us?
God could have created New Heaven and skipped all of our suffering. Which premise do you directly contend. 
Topic's author
#57
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
A straightforward couple of questions.

A. What exactly is sin?

B. How and why was/were such conclusions decided upon?
Good questions Zed.  

Sin is a religious term.  It is not a secular term and from a secular or non-religious point of view - the word sin is nothing worth worrying about - because firstly there is no god and secondly,  it is all about controlling people by guilt manipulation. 

Sin in the Bible - is an offence against God.   It is a transgression of His law.  It is described as "falling short" of God's mark.  Hence, why God cannot sin because God can never fall short of himself.  

The bible describes sin in terms of direct actions and omission - and in terms of indirect actions and omissions. It talks of reckless sin and of unintentional sin. Hence it is quite different in nature to just breaking the law - as humans understand - since human laws as a general rule have an intention element.  

If we were to consider the 10 commandments.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.  This has both negative and positive character to it. Firstly, the negative - you shall not murder someone.  A direct action is to kill someone.  An indirect action flowing on from this - is to assault someone, or to threaten someone or to even use abusive words - you are an idiot.  These all break the 6th commandment. 

Yet, it also has some acts by omission. Not looking after your children by neglect. Not teaching your kids not to be violent or to swear at people. Choosing to look the other way when someone is doing these things.  Failing to rally against abortion is an omission.  Condoning abortion or even professional matches. One might even argue that attending at a full contact sporting match is a condoning of murder, since it encourages assault. 

Similarly not discipling your children - when they hurt someone or call them a name.  Watching violent films - is condoning violent behavior.  

All of these things fail to live up to the standard of do not kill.  

As you can see - everyone has broken this 6th commandment.  Sin is pervasive. Sin is overlooked - condoned, mocked. 


#58
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Well...As ever Trade I don't see a GODS definition of sin.

Only your reinterpretation of an archaic human concept, relative to an archaic human concept.



So how do you interpret the concept of original sin and the fall of man?

It is somewhat contradictory when Adam was made in a GODS image, is it not?


As I see it biblical sin is all about the onset of intellectual overthink, and the consequent onset of human physical inhibitions.


As for the Commandments:

We have no way of knowing what more recent interpretations of some sort of code of conduct originally relate to. But they certainly have a an air of human style social authoritarianism about them. I see nothing GODLY in them. They are all about human conduct and the violation of human authority.

Unless GOD is extremely selfish and authoritarian of course......After all, we are made in his own image.....So to put it crudely, God is an arsehole and therefore so will we inevitably be.


And we have been genetically programmed to die, by GOD, which therefore in your eyes is murder. A contradictory GOD it would seem.

#59
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3

A person Can commit a biblical sin.  
However.  
If a Sin can be so called  " removed "  then a sin is not what i think it is.  

If a sin can be removed. 
A Sin must be like a growth. Im guessing.  


Pinocchio  
#60
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7


THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2022


!!!!!!!!!   UPDATE ON MISS TRADESECRET’S COMICAL AND LAME EXCUSES TO RUN AWAY FROM YOUR LOGICAL BIBLICAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO HER BECAUSE SHE CAN’T ADDRESS THEM AND REMAIN INTELLIGENT LOOKING IN THE AFTERMATH, “OTHER THAN TO RUN AWAY FROM THEM AS SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES”   !!!!!!!!!!



MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #1: Tradesecret will call you a “bully,” for making her the Bible fool, or for asking questions that she could not answer, even though the questions asked were logically valid and biblically axiomatic!

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #2: Tradesecret will accuse you of “stalking” her if you repeat more than once why Tradesecret hasn’t addressed your questions in the first place! 

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #3: Tradesecret will use the ruse of “attacking them personally,” by name calling, which has nothing to do with the questions asked to her. Where the irony is she performs this act as well. Can Tradesecret spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?  Sure she can.

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #4: she will just go “SILENT” to your questions in the hopes that you will forget about the fact that you presented them to her in the first place!  

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #5:  she will give you “cutesy” excuses and images to try and take your mind off of the FACT that she is running away again from your valid axiomatic biblical questions! Child-like, but what did we expect. :(

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #6: Now if you want to make her the continued Bible fool, she “may” answer you if your question or statement to her is “properly presented to her!“ LOL!

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #7:  She will tell you that you are not interpreting the scripture correctly, even though it is LITERAL in nature. She disagrees with the literal presentation of any passage or narrative that embarrasses her, then she will come up with another ungodly "convenient interpretation" of said verse to make you wrong!
  
MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #8:  She will tell you that what you have found regarding her ungodly and despicable nature is because you have "hacked" into her DA account, and changed her posts to disgusting posts to further embarrass her! Priceless runaway tactic.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #9: She will divert the attention away from her in failing to prove her point by calling you a “creepy old man or a dunce.”

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #10”:  She will use the term that you “Distract and Attack” to save her from further embarrassment to her outright Bible stupidity and ignorance that has no bounds!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #11: She will say that she is not answering personal questions even though she at times presents personal things of hers in her posts, like showing us she is an admitted SEXUAL DEVIANT!  https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEBCZRV

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #12:  When you challenge her to a debate like I did, she will  tell you that you argue like a 12 year old girl or boy and have not matured enough, therefore she will RUN away from debating you, because in essence, she can't debate you in the first place!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #13:  She will tell you that you don’t have a brain and that you are a fake, and you don’t have the background to discuss religion with her. 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #14:  She will tell you that you look “dumb” and that you couldn’t really grasp the subject matter, therefore she will RUN AWAY from your posst to her and hide. 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #15:  Zeus forbid if you are an Atheist who outright owns her Bible stupidity, because she'll send up a smoke screen to prevent the Atheist from further embarrassing her regarding the Bible, she will call you names and blanket unwarranted claims about your denying any God.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #16:  Her computer tells her that she should not open up webpage links it does not recognize that you have posted to her, therefore releasing her from further biblical embarrassment!  LOL!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #17:  If you make a derogatory comment to her it is enough for her to not address your question, BUT, she makes these same remarks to other members, can we say HYPOCRITE, sure we can!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #18: She will call your posts to her as LIES, therefore there is no need for her to discuss your posts, yes, this is true! Can we call Miss Tradesecret the habitual RUNAWAY? Sure we can! 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #19:  She will tell you that your posts are “not worth it” to respond too, in once again showing her outright Bible ignorance to run away from them!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #20:  She will tell you that she doesn’t give a “toss” about your stupid ideas of a post you’ve directed to her, again, in running away from it as usual.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #21:  When she opens a previous link that was directed to her, and after opening it and it showed her that she was wrong in her perceived biblical knowledge, she will tell you that she DID NOT open said post because she could care less in what you proposed!  LOL

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #22:  She will tell you that you don’t have enough “integrity” to take her time in debating you or answer your questions as a little crybaby!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #23: If she knows you will easily “own her Bible stupidity,” and allegedly you are using a fake personna, she will not debate you or answer your questions, other than to run away and HIDE from them! 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #24: She will answer questions that she wants to answer, and not other questions that makes her the Bible fool! 



We can only assume that poor ol’ Miss Tradesecret, in being the #1 Bible stupid runaway fool of this forum, at one point will have so many excuses piled up not to address questions posed to her, that she will not be able to be in this forum anymore because the MANY EXCUSES that she has will cause her to be SILENT!  LOL!