CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I just checked and he said that you more or less have free will. He said that while he did create you, he does not make your decisions for you. He did not predestine your lives. He would rather you choose to align your will with his, but if you don't want to, he won't make you.
Many believe our lives are not predestined but instead that there is an infinite number of alternate realities that God can see all of, and every choice we makes opens a new number of possibilities.
God knows all that is, all that was, and all that could be.
We puny humans however, do not. And because we do not know, we have the ability to choose for ourselves what we do. The outcome of those choices however, is not up to us to determine. If we make one choice, something will happen, if we make a different, something else may happen instead. This does not mean however that we did not have the ability to make the choice with our own volition.
God does not find joy in the destruction of the wicked; however, He has created even the wicked for this destruction so that His glory may be seen and His love may be felt by His elect.
-_- predestined means God knows what's going to happen. That's it, it does not mean he forces something to happen. He knows the choices we are going to make.
This is probably going to sound familiar since it's a copy paste from one of our previous conversations on the topic that got side-tracked. In that discussion I said, "Your core argument is that foreknowledge does not equal causation, which is absolutely true in nearly every case. However, there is one important difference in the god scenario, if god created everything he is the cause of it all. Think of it like a Rube Goldberg machine. God looks at a blueprint for the machine (i.e. looks at our future). He knows before beginning construction on the machine exactly what each part will do. If he goes ahead and creates the machine and starts it up, he is the initial cause. The parts of the machine can't do anything different than what the blueprint said. If god had showed the blueprint to someone else, but that person didn't help construct the machine, then the statement "foreknowledge does not equal causation" would apply to that person, but since god built the machine and set it in motion knowing what each part would do he caused the entire sequence of events to unfold and the parts of the machine had no choice but to do what the blueprint said."
This is, by analogy, exactly what I was going to say on the God and freewill argument. Thank you for saving me the time. Pity I can only up-vote you once.
I've come to disagree with this, just because god has created everything doesn't mean we don't have free will, we have the free will to choose what we do with the predetermined course, god just knows all the outcomes of every choice we make, that's all.
"we have the free will to choose what we do with the predetermined course"
That's a contradiction. If the course is predetermined, then there can't be free will. Predetermination and free will are are polar opposites.
Predetermine
1. Foreordain, predestine. To determine beforehand.
2. To impose a direction or tendency on beforehand. (source)
If god knows the course we will choose before creating us, then by creating us he is sending us down that course and we can't veer from it. If he created our brain, he knows exactly how it will respond to each situation in our lives.
No it means that all outcomes have been predetermined, and you can choose which path to take in life
I only use Christian analogy because it seems to be the most familiar, but I do not believe in it word for word, all im saying is, we choose to either live holy or not.
Yes, in a way he does know, but you argue as if god is inputing commands. God designed the software, but he puts the controls (keyboard, game controller, etc.) in our hands.
You're using the standard arguement of free will but it has some flaws.
The most straightforward way to attack the standard argument is to see that the three objections really need to become three requirements for free will.
First, there is a Determinism Requirement - that our actions be adequately determined by our character and values. This requires that randomness not be the direct cause of our actions.
Libertarians do not like this requirement.
Determinists who think that determinism is all they need for free will call themselves compatibilists.
Next, there must be a Randomness Requirement, unpredictable chance events that break the causal chain of determinism. Without this chance, our actions simply the consequences of events in the remote past. This randomness must be located in a place and time that enhances free will, not one that reduces it to pure chance.
Determinists do not like this requirement.
Libertarians say that randomness in the decision itself is all they need for human freedom.
If we can meet these two requirements, we will satisfy the Responsibility Requirement.
We do this by showing
that the determinism we really have in the world is only adequate determinism and
that the randomness we have (especially quantum indeterminism) has negligible effect on that adequate determinism, but provides the alternative possibilities from which our determined will can choose, can make a selection for which we can be responsible.
From what I can understand, this still doesn't refute my position.
I was operating under the assumption that God exists, and that God is all knowing. He would know the position of every object and particle in the universe. So he knows exactly what will happen if he tweaks or changes this one thing here or there. In doing so, he dictates our actions. Randomness disappears, everything behaves according to the initial conditions he put in.
God knows that if he changes this microscopic thing about you here, that maybe you'll eat a turkey sandwich on May 3rd 2013, instead of a peanut butter sandwich. Trivial I know, but I'm just trying to demonstrate my point.
Let's use the trivial example though. The problem with this view is past desicions that incluence present and future desicions are based upon the theory that these past desicion are seen as directly causing another desicions to be made, while in reality they only influence. Example let's go even more trivial, i want you to either up-vote or down-vote this arguement. Then I want you to tell me why you did it. But then i want you to tell me their was no possible way for you to choose the other option.
The problem with this view is past desicions that incluence present and future desicions are based upon the theory that these past desicion are seen as directly causing another desicions to be made, while in reality they only influence.
God would have to set the initial "influence", which would then affect the next thing and the next thing and so on. He knows how much each thing is influenced too. There is no randomness, he knows what will happen. If God had changed the initial "influence", then whatever happens after that would change as well.
By picking the initial conditions, he has dictated what happens afterwards.
You still haven't actually proven anything. Do the initial exercise I suggested then we'll talk. You can be influenced but in the end the choice is yours and yours alone. Most of these debates spawn from the idea that if somehow you can show rejecting God is his fault, then you're free to go and its not your problem. That's simply not true.
Most of these debates spawn from the idea that if somehow you can show rejecting God is his fault, then you're free to go and its not your problem. That's simply not true.
That's not my thought process. Mine was more of "if god is all knowing, then you have no free will".
If we truly have free will, how does God know what we will pick? Unless God doesn't know what we will pick, only that we will pick one. Then he isn't all knowing.
I did not say you did, I'm sorry if that's the impression you got, that's just a lot of peoples thought process. Anyhoo, knowledge of an event does not require the lack of free will, or even any sort of action. It is the fact that God is omni-"everything good" (potent, scient, benevolent) that does. However that does not mean you do not have free will, just that he has a lot of influence The entire Judeo-Christian religion is based off the idea you have free will.God can set up rules for you to follow and set limitations but all of these are to try to get you to follow him.
Do you mind if I change the direction of this discussion?
The entire Judeo-Christian religion is based off the idea you have free will.God can set up rules for you to follow and set limitations but all of these are to try to get you to follow him.
I'm curious what your take is on this exactly. I don't know which religion you subscribe to. What do you think of the idea that we are basically "blackmailed" into "seeking a relationship" with God? Basically, believe in god and worship him, or else.
Yes its fine. And yes I'm a Christian. That's one of the hardest topics for nonbelievers and even believes to deal with, but is it really blackmail if it was yours in the first place? Nonbelievers come from the standpoint God doesn't exist so the assume God just damns them to hell cause he doesn't care. Jesus's entire ministry was about healing the brokenhearted and restoring a relationship with God. Hell is merely a continuation if this. This link doesn't really add to my arguemt but puts it in another format. I live breath and think music in reality(hencing me name).
but is it really blackmail if it was yours in the first place?
My what? My choice?
Nonbelievers come from the standpoint God doesn't exist so the assume God just damns them to hell cause he doesn't care.
I don't think most non believers believe that. I was of the impression that most non believers perceived it as god blackmailing them. "worship me. Oh, you don't want to worship me? That's evil, you have no place in my kingdom", and since the only alternative is hell....it's basically blackmail.
Jesus's entire ministry was about healing the brokenhearted and restoring a relationship with God. Hell is merely a continuation if this.
My question is, why is a relationship with God required? If you do not have a relationship with God, your alternative is hell. Seems pretty harsh.
I hope I'm not interfering :) but I think I'll have to disagree with what you've said :)
Do you think the programmer will allow you to think that you are a software and that you have no free will ?! If God is like a programmer then he wouldn't want his people to rebel against him wouldn't he ? for you to think like this is a proof that you have the free will to think and therefore act !
why do you see the fact that God had created you uniquely like some sort of a program !! there's a great difference between God knowing what's your choices are going to be ,and between God determining what's your choices are going to be .. He knows but he does not force you too !
Do you think the programmer will allow you to think that you are a software and that you have no free will ?! If God is like a programmer then he wouldn't want his people to rebel against him wouldn't he ? for you to think like this is a proof that you have the free will to think and therefore act !
This is somewhat difficult to understand. Could you rephrase it?
there's a great difference between God knowing what's your choices are going to be ,and between God determining what's your choices are going to be .. He knows but he does not force you too !
But God is the one who supposedly created each of us. Because he created us in this certain way, he basically dictated our choices from then on out. If he created me or you slightly differently, we would make different choices.
let's think of it as if we are robots not software ; it's the same robots are given set of instructions as well . Does a robot know that he is a robot and that he is limited to a number of actions ? No because if he knew he would decide not to follow these instructions and do whatever he wants to do .The technician will certainly not want this to happen,rather he would like his robot to do whatever he was designed to do.Thus, he will not give him the chance to even think outside what's permitted for him as a robot to think about ... Am i complicating this :) ? What I'm trying to say is that God will not allow you to think that way "outside what you're programmed to think " if he did not give you the free will to do so . it's not of his benefit if you think that way .
he created us and he certainly knows how we think ,and react but he is not inputting us with choices . The fact that when you are trying to decide something you have a diversity of choices not just one means that God is not inputting you with choices . he would give you one choice to follow and that's it why the bather you know ?
let's think of it as if we are robots not software
This makes no difference. Robots are ran on software...
he created us and he certainly knows how we think ,and react but he is not inputting us with choices
He's not directly inputting the choices for us. He is creating us in such a way, that the initial conditions force us to make certain choices that we believe are our own, but it is actually an illusion of choice.
ok let's assume that our choices are not ours and it's indirectly God's
then why are some of our choices we make or" he makes as you said "are not always good ! or in other words do not serve God . I mean wouldn't the choices then be perfect ,and we would be living in a perfect world with no crimes and bad stuff going around. Evil do exist because people decide to leave God . if what you're saying is true then wouldn't God create you in a way that will allow you to always chose him over evil !?
Can I ask, are about 50% of the people in the same school and same class? Because every now and then, out of no where, you get about 50 debates all at the same time about the exact same thing. The worst, I think, was the " man is a bundle of emotions. " That went on for far too long! It just seems like you're all being set certain assignments, so you go on the debate site, post forth your debates and hope to get some answers. This is the third 'free will' debate I have seen.
One of the this that clearly proves that God gives us free will is the presence of evil .God is good he will never destine someone to be evil . God grants us free will to chose whether to be good or bad !!
Right now think of something you want to do any thing good bad any thing !! IS there any divine power that holds you back from doing it ??? I guess not you are free to do whatever you want
Because God is omnipotent, then He cannot be anything other than omnipotent by definition of God's essence. If God created something that was equally as powerful as He, then He would not be able omnipotent any longer. Therefore, God could not have created something that was equal to Himself. If something is created that is not equal to Himself, then it can be very powerful, but not totally powerful. If something is not totally powerful, then it cannot be fully anything good. If something cannot be fully anything good, then it can only be very good, which the Bible states was Adam and Eve. Therefore, because the essence of Adam and Eve was not totally good, they had the capability to sin should God allow them to do so. Moreover, should you be wondering why God allowed it to happen, then I would point you to Romans 9, for it addresses this entire issue: for God has created some to be used for dishonorable use so that God's wrath may be shown and His mercy and love may fully be displayed for His elect. Therefore, according to the Bible and reason, there is not free will.
I am not religious but I dont see how that quote proves we dont have free will. I mean if he is omnipotent what if he truly didnt care? What if the bible was twisted and vexed from its origin? We may never know. What if he just let them? If nobody had free will he would just make everyone do good.
1) The entire topic was based in whether the Bible has a contradiction based upon free will and predestination. There is no such contradiction.
2) God, being omnipotent, can't be anything other than omnipotent. Therefore, He must be omnipotent. Omnipotence means that He is sovereign over all. If He is sovereign over all, then no one can have free will in the absolute sense, for if He gave up His ability to be omnipotent, then He would be doing (a) the logically impossible and (b) that which cannot be reversed, for He would not be able to regain His omnipotence. Therefore, no one can logically have free will, while God is sovereign and omnipotent.
Well. I think God may have just been an extraterrestrial of some sort with a bigger basis of science then us. This would make contradictions understandable and make the weird events in the bible possibly true like the 10 plagues and the spliting of the sea.
You can I dont mind. I just thought it would clear up any questions that people have and yes I believe it is possible for a god to exist since we cant fully disprove his non existence.
If God is a maximally great being and He is possible to exist, then He necessarily exists in some possible world (or some series of actualities). If He exists in some possible world, then because He is maximally great and cannot be contingent upon the world and it is not maximally great for God to only exist in thought and not in reality, then He is necessarily existent in every world. If He is existent in every world, then He necessarily is in this world. If He is in this world, then He necessarily exists. If He necessarily exists, then He is real. Therefore, God is real.
The logic holds true. You can call God a unicorn, superman, or Jesus. By logic, God is necessarily true. We can name Him whatever we want but that does not deny the fact that a maximally great being is necessarily true.
I'm not talking about a different name for God, I'm talking about additional maximally great beings. In addition to God, do we also have Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman, Thor, Hulk, etc?
All those that you have named are not maximally great. Moreover, there can only be one maximally great being, otherwise none of them would be maximally great.
If two of them are maximally great, then they would not be able to affect one another, for the one who was affected would no longer be maximally great. Therefore, the only way to answer it is to have a maximally great being, who is one in mind. Therefore, it is logically contradictory for you to have said that these superheroes are all these things. Therefore, a being necessarily exists that is of one mind and maximally great.
If God is a maximally great being and He is possible to exist, then He necessarily exists in some possible world (or some series of actualities). If He exists in some possible world, then because He is maximally great and cannot be contingent upon the world and it is not maximally great for God to only exist in thought and not in reality, then He is necessarily existent in every world.
You first have to prove that there is a multiverse of all possibilities, then you have to prove god is physically possible, though we can't prove god isn't physically impossible, we haven't proven whether god is in the first place. Plus you can come up with multiple gods with different traits, multiple "maximally great beings" with different traits added on by this logic also has to exist, which they end up cancelling each other our because they aren't maximally great since they are all maximally great.
You first have to prove that there is a multiverse of all possibilities,
Thats not what the argument is. Its modal logic: possibilities of reality.
then you have to prove god is physically possible, though we can't prove god isn't physically impossible, we haven't proven whether god is in the first place.
This is an a priori argument, which means it is only reasoned based. Empirical data is not needed, for the logic speaks for itself.
Plus you can come up with multiple gods with different traits, multiple "maximally great beings" with different traits added on by this logic also has to exist, which they end up cancelling each other our because they aren't maximally great since they are all maximally great.
Thats why there can only be one maximally great being: this is God. It is logically contradictory to be able to conceive of two maximally great beings at one time. Therefore, your point is invalidated.
Thats not what the argument is. Its modal logic: possibilities of reality
If a possibilities is not an actuality, it is imaginary, imaginary maximal greatness is still imaginable maximal greatness, thus has no effect on the real world.
This is an a priori argument, which means it is only reasoned based. Empirical data is not needed, for the logic speaks for itself.
If we discovered that god is physically impossible, then that would mean that this logic doesn't apply, you even said that yourself. if god is possible... god exists.
hats why there can only be one maximally great being: this is God. It is logically contradictory to be able to conceive of two maximally great beings at one time. Therefore, your point is invalidated.
It invalidates your point more than mine, since a multitude of maximally great being can exist, since a maximally great being can have a multitude of different traits, they all equally logically justified, which means by your logic they all exist or none exist, and they all can't exist.
If a possibilities is not an actuality, it is imaginary, imaginary maximal greatness is still imaginable maximal greatness, thus has no effect on the real world.
However, in modal logic, variables are either contingent, impossible, or necessary. Impossible things are logical contradictory things. Contingent things are variables that are not necessarily true. And necessary variables are things such as a square having four sides. It is lesser than great to only be imaginary, therefore, it is utterly contradictory to be able to imagine a maximally great being that is only in the imaginary. Therefore, it is necessary for Him to be real, should He be maximally great. Moreover, if this maximally great being is possible to exist, then He would not be contingent upon the world's variables and must, therefore, be either impossible or necessary. Therefore, because one can imagine a maximally great being, then to be logically consistent, one must conclude that this maximally great being is real. Therefore, because you can imagine a maximally great being, then you are logically contradictory unless you believe He is real: otherwise, He would not be maximally great.
If we discovered that god is physically impossible, then that would mean that this logic doesn't apply, you even said that yourself. if god is possible... god exists.
God does not necessarily have to be physically possible. Numbers are not physical, yet they exist in the abstract. Therefore, according to your logic, numbers do not exist, nor thoughts, which is utterly contradictory to you being able to imagine a maximally great being.
It invalidates your point more than mine, since a multitude of maximally great being can exist, since a maximally great being can have a multitude of different traits, they all equally logically justified, which means by your logic they all exist or none exist, and they all can't exist.
You are begging the question and using circular logic. You argument against my point is either logically contradictory or viable. If it is logically inconsistent, then you cannot use that argument against mine, which is what you are trying to do. If it is logically viable, then your argument against mine supports mine. However, for you to say that two beings can be maximally great and then can invalidate my point because this is not possible is a logical fallacy. I can't explain the fallacy much more than that... it just is a fallacy.
However, in modal logic, variables are either contingent, impossible, or necessary. Impossible things are logical contradictory things. Contingent things are variables that are not necessarily true. And necessary variables are things such as a square having four sides. It is lesser than great to only be imaginary, therefore, it is utterly contradictory to be able to imagine a maximally great being that is only in the imaginary. Therefore, it is necessary for Him to be real, should He be maximally great. Moreover, if this maximally great being is possible to exist, then He would not be contingent upon the world's variables and must, therefore, be either impossible or necessary. Therefore, because one can imagine a maximally great being, then to be logically consistent, one must conclude that this maximally great being is real. Therefore, because you can imagine a maximally great being, then you are logically contradictory unless you believe He is real: otherwise, He would not be maximally great.
We however don't know if maximal greatness is physically possible, we can imagine it, however that does not mean it is physically possible. I can imagine someone floating in the air for no reason, however this does not mean it is phyisically possible. You can imagine something, but your imagination without knowledge can't verify that what it imagines contradicts facts that would make it impossible. For example I could imagine a body of mass so big and yet it does not create a black hole, but by the law of gravity it would have to create a black hole, therefore just because I can imagine it does not mean it is physically possible, if it is by chance physically impossible then that makes his actuality in another universe or other world cannot exist because god is impossible, so god is possible based on the knowledge thus far however we don't know if god is physically possible nor is it proven either way.
God does not necessarily have to be physically possible. Numbers are not physical, yet they exist in the abstract. Therefore, according to your logic, numbers do not exist, nor thoughts, which is utterly contradictory to you being able to imagine a maximally great being.
Numbers and thoughts do exist... as concepts. We can't prove they exist beyond that, and the same logic applies to god.
You are begging the question and using circular logic. You argument against my point is either logically contradictory or viable. If it is logically inconsistent, then you cannot use that argument against mine, which is what you are trying to do. If it is logically viable, then your argument against mine supports mine. However, for you to say that two beings can be maximally great and then can invalidate my point because this is not possible is a logical fallacy. I can't explain the fallacy much more than that... it just is a fallacy.
It shows how your argument is logically inconsistent, because a loving, maximally great being is just as possible as a hateful, maximally great being, and are both necessary according to your logic. Since only one maximally great being can exist, which is it? hateful or loving?
.
Your argument is also based on the presumption that a multiverse of all possibilities do exist as fact, if a multiverse like this doesn't exist then all actualities that can exist don't necessarily exist, meaning that a maximally great being doesn't necessarily exist.
We however don't know if maximal greatness is physically possible, we can imagine it, however that does not mean it is physically possible. I can imagine someone floating in the air for no reason, however this does not mean it is phyisically possible. You can imagine something, but your imagination without knowledge can't verify that what it imagines contradicts facts that would make it impossible. For example I could imagine a body of mass so big and yet it does not create a black hole, but by the law of gravity it would have to create a black hole, therefore just because I can imagine it does not mean it is physically possible, if it is by chance physically impossible then that makes his actuality in another universe or other world cannot exist because god is impossible, so god is possible based on the knowledge thus far however we don't know if god is physically possible nor is it proven either way.
You are mixing the contingent with the necessary. Contingent variables can be as radical as humans drinking liquid nitrogen to survive. It can be as radical as the laws of nature not being true. It can be all of these things; however, necessary things are based in the definition and essence of the thing. Such as a bachelor necessarily not being a married man, or a square having four sides.
Numbers and thoughts do exist... as concepts. We can't prove they exist beyond that, and the same logic applies to god.
I don't think you understand modal logic and the rules of necessity.
It shows how your argument is logically inconsistent, because a loving, maximally great being is just as possible as a hateful, maximally great being, and are both necessary according to your logic. Since only one maximally great being can exist, which is it? hateful or loving?
1) Loving and hating, should they be excluded from the concept of being maximally great, simply mean that the maximally great being could be loving or hating. It is is not contradictory at all if those are not included in the definition of being maximally great: the maximally great being would either be loving or hating, just as it could be a unicorn or a giraffe: those variables would no longer be necessary.
2) If loving and hating are principles of being maximally great, then there still can only be one maximally great being.
Your argument is also based on the presumption that a multiverse of all possibilities do exist as fact, if a multiverse like this doesn't exist then all actualities that can exist don't necessarily exist, meaning that a maximally great being doesn't necessarily exist.
You don't understand modal logic. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to debate with you on this... I believe you were trying to argue with me before and I said the same thing? Modal logic is based in hypotheticals: you are mixing the reasoned with the empirical.
You are mixing the contingent with the necessary. Contingent variables can be as radical as humans drinking liquid nitrogen to survive. It can be as radical as the laws of nature not being true. It can be all of these things; however, necessary things are based in the definition and essence of the thing. Such as a bachelor necessarily not being a married man, or a square having four sides.
Then by the definition of contingent variables, and on the presumption of your multiverse, no parallel universe is necessarily true.
I don't think you understand modal logic and the rules of necessity
I don't think you are understanding how modal logic is supposed to work. Explain to me what is faulty about my argument there?
1) Loving and hating, should they be excluded from the concept of being maximally great, simply mean that the maximally great being could be loving or hating. It is is not contradictory at all if those are not included in the definition of being maximally great: the maximally great being would either be loving or hating, just as it could be a unicorn or a giraffe: those variables would no longer be necessary.
an all-loving and all-hating being then, neither could ever be the other in any given situation. Either of them can exist and according to your logic they both have to exist, but according to the definition of maximally great, both of them can't exist... logical fallacy.
You don't understand modal logic. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to debate with you on this... I believe you were trying to argue with me before and I said the same thing? Modal logic is based in hypotheticals: you are mixing the reasoned with the empirical.
If modal logic only works with hypotheticals, then how does it prove god beyond a hypothetical?
1.) PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
2.) .EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
3.) MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
4.)MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Sorry, those are not good enough for argument. Most of them are opinionated and claimed that meaning was lost in the translation from the ancient Hebrew text. Difficulties in translations only makes the book less reliable. Two books (which are supposed to be of the same account) go out into different genealogies without providing any proof of either genealogy. The writers of the books didn't account for everyone present and are nearly every way opinionated and speculative arguments as to why so many people were left out in the visiting of the tomb. While I agree that TWO separate verses can be taken out of context but, you can't tell me god is a god of peace and then commands war. The people surely could have figured out by themselves that they needed to fight from someone walking up and saying "H-HEY! listen! People are comming to kill us... Take your tools and make weapons, it might be our only hope!" It doesn't take God to tell you to do that.
"Sorry, those are not good enough for argument. Most of them are opinionated and claimed that meaning was lost in the translation from the ancient Hebrew text."
Same can be said for your "contradictions".
"The people surely could have figured out by themselves that they needed to fight from someone walking up and saying 'H-HEY! listen! People are comming to kill us... Take your tools and make weapons, it might be our only hope!' It doesn't take God to tell you to do that."
You didn't read the websites I gave you did you. Isreal tries to embody God's nature. They are a nation of peace and only resort to war when they are told to. Example the Amelekites (it's off the top of my head so the spelling might be wrong) were slowly picking off the Hebrews. It took 25 years years of this before God said be done with them to Saul. He's a God of peace, but he resorts to war when he needs to.
Lol "You didn't read the websites I gave you did you. Isreal tries to embody God's nature. They are a nation of peace and only resort to war when they are told to."
They also are guilty of attacking others not out of self defense.
That's no excuse nice try though. also I have heard that God has spoken to Israel in a very long time. Last I heard he was talking to George W. Bush. To me the modern era is very relevant to the bible. It's all we have to compare our lives from then to now. If Jews were the sacred chosen people why is He found talking to the U.S president that has slaughtered countless people?
If God is so prevalent to talk to so many people in the bible era why hasn't he spoken to more people working on the ground level with real divine wisdom where people begin to migrate towards new ideas in life instead of following the one we have been since the dawn of the Christian era?
God spoke in the Bible to guide. Today we have the Bible which is his word. And let's say for some reason he did speak like he did in the old testament, what makes you think you won't blame it on some type of hysteria?
"If God is so prevalent to talk to so many people in the bible era why hasn't he spoken to more people working on the ground level with real divine wisdom where people begin to migrate towards new ideas in life instead of following the one we have been since the dawn of the Christian era?"
God spoke in the Bible to guide. Today we have the Bible which is his word. And let's say for some reason he did speak like he did in the old testament, what makes you think you won't blame it on some type of hysteria?
Listen man, I'm done talking to you. Come back to me when you have heard God speak for yourself then we can talk.
No, I don't need to listen to bible gateway. I've listened to people preach the bible for 14 years of my life. I haven't found it in anyway to be worth reading and I feel annoyed to the point of nausea. I've found better materials that are more clear as to what they preach. I've found my own way. More useful, more insightful. I don't need to be a person that goes out just to preach what a book says while doing nothing to change the state of affairs of real problems. You people are all about converting people to your ways of thinking and its ridiculous. Thinking that for you there could any other way then the bible to me is like asking for a bullet in the head.
So go... go defend your book. Those books have caused so many problems in peoples lives I couldn't even begin to shake a stick at it all.
I have seen nothing good come from them. I've seen and felt more good from people who choose to believe in God but, reject the bible.
I wont respond to you again on this matter. Good'ay.
1) The word "all" does not necessitate "everything." It could easily means a limited amount of God's works that are contextual to the verse as the census was in the time of Jesus. Moreover, His mercies could mean multiple different things: it could mean death, it could mean life, and it could mean torture. Mercy is equivocated in this "contradiction," for mercy in one sense means a divine just mercy (as in having mercy in a courtroom), while in the other is could mean simple "life."
2) Peace and war do not contradict one another if they are applied to two different outlets.
3) Genealogies are not necessarily counted the same. Many scholars believe that the two genealogies are from Mary and from Joseph. Joseph was the groom and, therefore, he was the one to be named here: he was a son-in-law. Moreover, Joseph's father does not necessarily mean his immediate father: it could easily mean his late father, or grandfather, or ancestor.
Name one at a time and we can go through them. There are supposedly over 300; I will not go through all of them with you one by one, so pick your favorites and we will go through them one by one.
I don't know where it says "god gave them free will" directly in the bible. If it does then my statement is valid. However it is still valid because of this:
Alot of things that Christians believe today come from interpretations of the bible where the bible may not directly quote them.
For example, the snake in genisis that tricks eve, that's satan right? According to nearly every Christian you ask the answer is yes. Because that was interpreted. But the answer is actually no if we're speaking purely biblically. The bible NEVER says the snake is satan anywhere. But it's already widely accepted that he is.
So my thing about free will us that gods actions are interpreted as him giving us free will in that nearly all Christians accept it. For example if you ask someone "why didn't god intervene here?" They'll usually say something like "oh that would've interfered with free will. He gave us free will blah blah blah". I've heard it a million times from every Christian.
So whereas its not like a literal statement it's interpreted by gods actions and the like. So my statement is still justified in that sense.
And those Christians don't know what they are talking about. The Bible clearly states that there is no free will. No where does it say that there is free will. All of the reasons they give in favor of free will can be answered via Genesis 50:20, Proverbs 16:4, Acts 4:27-29, Romans 9, and Ephesians 1.
Wonderfull another thing 99% of Christians are diluted about. How's living in complete subservience to a god? Knowing your life is meaningless beyond being a puppet? Fucking sickening.
