Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AlanF

  Deputy Dog said:
  
  : God has no cause.
  
  Ah. I thought as much. But then, it's evident that you don't understand the notion of The Big Bang. According to the physicists who are the keepers of this idea, nothing caused the Big Bang, either. It's a quantum mechanical notion and has a lot to do with "quantum fluctuations" and Heisenberg's so-called Uncertainty Principle. So the origin of the Christian God is as mysterious as is the origin of the Big Bang.
  
  : But you're the one with all the answers.
  
  A typical Christian answer -- you don't speak truth. I never said or implied anything of the sort. Indeed, I don't even particularly believe that The Big Bang is a good explanation for the origin of the universe, and even if it's a partially decent explanation, it's far from complete.
  
  : Why don't you tell us what your faith is based on.
  
  I have no religious faith. I have no trace of religious inclination.
  
  : It sounds like you think you have something better.
  
  Living one's life based on realities that can be observed and/or produce real, observable effects is invariably better than living it based on unrealities such as Santa Clause. Many Christian claims, and ideas found in the Bible, are demonstrably unreal.
  
  : So tell us about your God or yourself, are they the same person?
  
  I have no God, and I certainly have no delusions of grandeur. Unlike many religious people who think they know the mind of the Christian God or some other god.
  
  Your next post well illustrates the unthinking nature of far too many Christians:
  
  : Yea, your fallen nature makes you feel good.
  
  This comment has nothing to do with this thread, and serves only as a meaningless ad hominem that shows you can't answer the problems I posed.
  
  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  Hi LittleToe,

  : I'm going to continue to be candid with you, even though I'm not certain that I'm truly getting the same in return.

  I'm being candid alright, but trying to phrase things in a way that will get you and other readers thinking outside the Christian box.

  : I believe that sometimes people are too busy constructing their counter-arguments, to actually listen to the soul of what the other is trying to impart. I used to do that regularly as a JW and became astonished when finally seeing it for what it was, in those final months in Field Service.

  Well, I certainly am trying to understand what you have to say.

  : Your analogies to Santa Claus (and pantheon) don't really do justice to your argument.

  I disagree. I think they're extremely relevant.

  : They are old and worn,

  That doesn't mean they're no good. I sometimes use old and worn illustrations because they're familiar, and people easily get the point.

  : and whilst they might tackle some of the issues of fundamentalism, you already know that I don't lean that way.

  Right.

  : Besides, you are not talking to five-year-olds, here. You are talking to a group of mainly-compassionate (and passionate) adults. Condescension, along with sarcasm, does really win too many argumentation brownie points with me (other than for humour value ).

  The humor value is largely the point. I also sometimes try to irritate people a bit so as to get them to think more clearly about their ideas and claims.

  : And so; I would conject that all frameworks have a modicum of reality and a modicum of fiction within, even your own.

  That's probably true, but your statement is so general that it's meaningless for our discussion. We're not discussing the philosophy of belief systems in general, but certain specifics of the Christian belief system. Let's keep on track here.

  : Before you counter that, you might examine some of your own preconceptions and assumptions.

  And what do you think they might be?

  : Terry's post was, indeed, excellent. However we find even for the scientific-fundamentalist that there are issues such as DDog raised, such as how did the Big Bang occur.

  There are such issues, of course. No one who has a real, working knowledge of science thinks that science has anywhere near all the answers, or ever will. On the other hand, the Christian system is supposedly complete and has been static for some 2,000 years. It supposedly gives believers all they need to worship God in the way God desires. Science is quite the opposite, because its basic notion is that research will always be required to learn more. So when you say that science has unanswered questions, and imply or state that this is a weakness compared to the Christian system, you're comparing apples and oranges. You're expecting science to be just another religion that ought to have all the answers.

  : More importantly it doesn't even begin to touch on the "why?" of life, which is why we turn to philosophy and myth to plug some of the gaps.

  Quite right. But I think that any attempts to answer "why" need to be based on reality, not on nice, warm, feel-good myths.

  : Some are content to use such as "placeholders" and temporary markers, whilst they continue to evolve. Others seem to stagnate .

  An interesting point. In my experience (I'll keep this oriented toward ex-JWs) thoughtful ex-JWs usually go through a period of intense questioning after they leave the JW cult. Then they either become agnostic/atheist, or some kind of other Christian. A very small number join non-Christian religions. I don't consider the ex-JWs who go off and get involved in really stupid behaviors like doing drugs and so forth to be thoughtful.

  : I'm going to throw in another theory, to highlight a potential scientific deficiency.

  As I said, such deficiencies don't help the case for Christianity.

  : I believe that the scientific evidence (that I've been able to review) doesn't actually point to a singularity as the start of the Universe, but rather a "donut of energy". The shape of the resultant galaxies, and their spread, is far more consistent with this view, in my belief.

  First, I don't particularly agree with some of the fine points of the Big Bang idea (read my post to Deputy Dog). Second, your comment shows that you don't really understand what the current Big Bang Theory actually says. But that's fine, because I don't think that anyone -- not you, not me and not physicists -- really has any understanding of the earliest moments of our universe, and certainly not of the much larger "macro-cosmic all" in which an infinite number of universes somewhat akin to ours might exist.

  : Now, if I could adequately quantify this with facts, after a while (working it's way against the current traditions and bastions of science - which [has been / is] a similar issue with new thought in theology) it might get accepted as established fact. You yourself would have to take a shift in thinking that may or may not be difficult (depending on how much you'd invested in your beliefs regarding the Big Bang), else maybe you'd not bother.

  I have no particular investment in any scientific theories at all. I'm interested in the facts, and in the best interpretation of those facts. If someone comes up with better interpretations than are now current, then fine.

  That said, I think that many facts prove conclusively that some ideas are false. It's false that the sun orbits the earth, it's false that the JW Governing Body speaks for God and it's false that there was an earthwide Flood a few thousand years ago.

  : My point being? Simply this (and I apologise for my verbosity); that each and every one of us has our beliefs about how the world is.

  I knew that!

  : There is a cost associated with that, and a continuous investment (even if we leave it fallow, as it becomes a vintage assumption).

  : There may be more "baggage" with the addition of a deity, but it also simplifies things for the layperson, in that it's a single placeholder instead of many.

  Well, simplification for the mere sake of simplification isn't of much value. JWs have a very simple mindset: obey the JW Governing Body in all things and you'll probably be saved through the Battle of Armageddon.

  : If the mind is flexible enough, and as science progresses, that placeholder may continually get eroded. Nonetheless it is "big" enough, as a concept, to cover all the strange and as yet unexplained goings-on in the world.

  There's a huge problem with that philosophy. I recently had a debate with a young-earth creationist, and I'm going to post an extract from my manuscript:

  I want to say something about the basic philosophy of Intelligent Design, starting with a story about Isaac Newton. Newton was a committed Christian and wrote quite a bit of material in support of the Bible and Christianity. He saw a great deal of evidence of God?s handiwork in the natural world. But there was a problem that he never solved. In 1687 he published his revolutionary work The Principia on physics and gravity. A few years later, astronomers predicted the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn using his mathematics. But they found that the measured positions didn?t quite match up. Newton attributed this to God?s tinkering with the orbits. There was no scientific answer to the problem until the English astronomer William Herschel discovered the planet Uranus in 1781. By about 1800, astronomers had fully worked out how Uranus perturbed the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn, so there was no need to ascribe their motions to God?s tinkering.

  This story illustrates the so-called "God of the Gaps" problem. Scientific knowledge is of course always provisional, never certain. There are always gaps in understanding, just as Newton didn?t understand why his theory of gravity didn?t appear to work perfectly. Like Newton, some Christians have attributed to God the mechanism behind various gaps in knowledge. But, as with Newton, in many cases the gaps have disappeared as scientists made new discoveries. Over the years this disappearance has caused a good deal of embarrassment to Christians who espoused such ideas, so today many Christians are loath to propose any kind of "God of the Gaps" theory to account for the many gaps in scientists? knowledge of the mechanisms of evolution. My point is that the fact that scientists don?t now know the exact mechanism behind something in nature is not a particularly good reason to ascribe that mechanism to God.

  One problem for Intelligent Design, then, is that it may amount to yet another "God of the Gaps" theory. Time will tell, I suppose.

  My point is that if your "placeholder", which amounts to a "God of the Gaps" theory, gets eroded down to zero, then you'll have no place left for God. So, while it might be argued to be useful to plug God into scientific gaps just to make oneself comfortable, doing so may well turn out to be just fooling oneself.

  : My question to you would be, why do you desire to destroy that, given that your ultimate truth isn't ultimate, either?

  I think that it's nearly always better to live according to reality than according to unreality. I can prove that a number of Bible concepts are nonsense, and that science gives much better answers for certain things. The point is not about ultimate certainty, but about reasonable certainty.

  ::: What is real?

  :: That which is observable and/or produces actual effects in our universe or some other, I suppose.

  : Actually this response delights me, because it demonstrates an open mind.

  I have a very open mind. For example, if someone could answer the many challenges I have regarding the Bible and Christianity, I'd reconsider my overall philosophy of life.

  : I wish that even half of my Christian friends would demonstrate the same...

  So do I.

  : I would ask you to apply that to this very human fact. All of us base our beliefs on some scientific fact.

  I wouldn't go so far as to say "all of us".

  : What each feels is "substansive" enough for themselves, is up to the individual.

  I'm sorry, but this is way too touchy-feely for my taste. It's what I was trying to show with my comments about Santa Clause, Scientology and Flat-Earthism. I certainly allow everyone to choose their belief system (I certainly can't force anyone to believe or do anything at all, and in most cases I wouldn't even if I had the power), but that doesn't mean that I ought to allow that their belief system is valid. And when they get on public discussion forums and present their beliefs, then I will certainly discuss them as I see fit.

  : I have to confess, being refered to as a "nice Christian", and compared to "the more reasonable muslims" doesn't really do much for me.

  I understand that, and my point was to irritate you a bit.

  : It's probably akin to how you might feel being refered to as a "nice scientist-type chap" or one of "the more reasonable Big-Bangers".

  You're comparing apples and oranges again. Scientists as a group, and Big-Bangers as a group, don't go out and kill massive numbers of people in the name of some deity. They don't impose irrational Biblical or sharia laws on people. You know of plenty of Christians who are ridiculously self-righteous and judgmental and arrogant. This is much less a problem in the community of unbelievers that I'm personally familiar with. Indeed, it seems to me that part of rejecting religious belief involves rejecting such bad qualities.

  : As for my comments not coming close to the response you desired, I'm afraid they are as close as I can come. I believe they addressed the essential issues, but if you feel otherwise I'd be more than happy to reappraise.

  They didn't address any of the essential issues because they weren't specific. Terry and I raised a number of very specific issues. You didn't say a word about any of them, but spoke in sweeping and almost meaningless generalities. To me, it's like a JW being challenged with the specific problem of why the Watchtower has covered up a great deal of child sexual abuse, and answering, "Well, we have the truth, so I won't bother myself with that particular problem."

  Let me bring up a specific point that Terry did, relating to "inherited sin". In the first post on this thread, Undisfellowshipped said:

  God DID NOT create Lucifer or Adam and Eve as robots who were PROGRAMMED to sin and do evil. God created Lucifer and Adam and Eve with the freedom to choose whether or not to sin and do evil, even though God knew what choice they would make.

  There is a big difference between allowing someone the freedom to choose to sin, and creating them in such a way that they MUST SIN.

  What Christians who argue in this way are forgetting (this includes JWs and most other Christians I've discussed this with) is that the Bible doctrine requires that God created all of Adam and Eve's offspring "in such a way that they MUST SIN." So Undisfellowshipped's argument is a sidestep and fails to address the real issue (if you want to read a very long treatise that I wrote on this topic in 1991, and sent to the Watchtower Society, check here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ransom.htm ). If you can substantively and specifically address this problem, then you'll have done something no Christian I've ever dealt with has.

  The devil is in the details, and if you can't get them right, you have no case.

  : But, I do believe that I get your point about belief verses reality.

  I'm not sure you do. Perhaps after this post?

  : Do you get mine?

  I think so.

  : Incidentally the analogy of Marital Arts

  I know a good deal about the Marital Arts. Now, Martial Arts are another matter.

  : was in connection with the "power" of belief. I've seen the difference between someone doing the moves, and someone doing them with "intent". The results are astounding, as can also be seen in spirituality vs mere religiosity.

  Ok, now I see your point about that. But I still don't see that it has any good connection with our discussion. The power of belief may get one a lot farther in some things than if one doesn't believe, but no amount of belief is going to let me flap my arms and fly to Glasgow.

  : Getting back to the thread, do you feel free to choose "God"?

  Of course. But being free to, and wanting to based on a demonstrably flawed Bible are rather different things.

  : Or are you disposed not to, based on your current level of understanding?

  Since I don't believe in the God of the Bible, the question is not applicable.

  : If you'd dismissed such a notion, what is it that you've dismissed? Is it the concept of a creator, an invisible benefactor, an intelligent quantum energy, or something else? Which is the "God" that you feel you have refuted? Is that really "God", or just a "placeholder" that you feel you've achieved the demolition of? What IS this "God" that so many claim to believe in, yet so many do without?

  The Christian God is rather well described in the Bible. It's this God -- the one that JWs, Jews, Catholics and Protestants claim to worship -- that I don't believe in at all. I'm an agnostic with respect to the existence of a more generalized Supreme Creator, but my leaning is that there is no such being. If there is, it's quite unlike the personalized God of the Bible, since it obviously has no feeling for its creatures (hark back to Terry's and my comments about predators).

  : Just as another confession. I don't think there's a Christian alive who believes that the bible expresses all there is to know about "Bible-God" (Tm Farkel??).

  I agree.

  : For those that commit travesties, I suspect we are in agreement that they are using a text in a way in which it wasn't designed (as per the early Christian ethos), hence it doesn't really make them a good example of Christianity, even if that mindest has been prevalent.

  I don't agree. The Christian God is the same as the demonstrably bloodthirsty and petty Jewish God.

  : It's great to see you back, though!

  Thanks, but I don't generally have the time or inclination these days to spend much time posting.

  AlanF
• 

  ellderwho

  Alan,

  Living one's life based on realities that can be observed and/or produce real, observable effects is invariably better than living it based on unrealities such as Santa Clause. Many Christian claims, and ideas found in the Bible, are demonstrably unreal.

  You make interesting statements. Im curious what is mankinds purpose?

  If at all, would you consider to abide by a set of Laws? ie. natural, inherent

  You state:"Living one's life based on realities that can be observed and/or produce real, observable effects"

  Are'nt you relying on logic? If so where does this logic come from?

  E.
• 

  Terry

  My own Father, Wesley Walstrom, impregnated my mother, married her, divorced her and vanished.

  What do I owe him? Love? Respect?

  I don't think so.

  My heavenly father has an analgous history with me. If I choose to believe I am the result of a conscious creative process by a Supreme Being in control of events in human history then, pardon me, He has a lot to answer for!!

  I don't owe him a goldarned thing! He OWES ME bigtime!!

  Why? How? Who in their right mind would talk like that about god?

  Me.

  God is invulnerable. He is all-powerful. He is all knowing and cannot die or be harmed under any circumstance. I, on the other had, exist as a result of events HE set in motion. I can be hurt very easily and usually am. I have little power. I can and will die in a relatively short time. I control next to nothing and don't know the future, much less guide it.

  Why, then, do I have to CHOOSE to be a slave of such a super being? Where exactly does He get off needing my slavery, service, servitude to polish his almighty apple???

  If I am his child---how does he manage to escape providing enough support that I may live?

  If you call 70 years compared to eternity living.

  Who invented death, if not God?

  Look at all those millions of dinosaurs for billions of years eating each other. What is that all about? Amusement for a divine adolescent?

  I refuse to believe any SUPREME intellect with a heart and with any kind of fatherly love would be such a jerk as the history of mankind seems to demonstrate.

  If this world and this universe is a result of INTELLIGENT design I have to wonder who sneaked in and changed the meaning of the word "intelligent".

  Life is a temporary thing and a fragile thing which is fueled by the DEATH of living things.

  If this is the Divine plan of the ages I opt out. I cancel my subscription.

  Why? Anytime I can come up with a better and more just plan that the creator of heaven and earth I smell a rat.

  You see, I suspect we have been sold a bill of goods. I don't think the description of "god" is accurate. I think it may be an ancient piece of folklore and guesswork by people filled without superstition and a lot of presumptive guesswork.

  But, that's just me. Don't pay any attention to what I say. I'm nobody.

  Terry
• 

  gumby

  We all work to various frameworks, in this life.
  For some, they work to the ethos of a deity. Since this "belief" helps them get through life, giving them purpose and assuaging certain fears and concerns, it simply works for them. If they desire to complicate it with further mental gymnastics, so be it.

  LT,

  Isn't that what the dubs do? They believe in a paradise soon to come if they work hard enough. This gives them a purpose and meaning to life.....why spoil all that LittleToe........even if they "desire to complicate it with further mental gymnastics, so be it"???????

  You came to this forum and shared in exposing a group who taught us lies that made us feel good, yet you feel non-believers should keep their mouths shut and not rain on the parade of the believers who have a hope and purpose in life. I don't understand your reasoning, but I still think you have a nice arse when you wear the kilt!

  Deputy dog,

  It's a natural human reaction to get all pissed and shit at others who might ruin or at least cast doubts on your belief system.....so don't feel bad, I did the same thing.

  Gumby
• 

  AlanF

  ellderwho said:

  : You make interesting statements. Im curious what is mankinds purpose?

  I have no clue. Probably none.

  : If at all, would you consider to abide by a set of Laws? ie. natural, inherent

  Sure. I do that all the time. I also abide by most of "man's laws".

  : You state:"Living one's life based on realities that can be observed and/or produce real, observable effects"

  : Are'nt you relying on logic?

  I like to think I am.

  : If so where does this logic come from?

  Our brains, which evolved over several million years into the best social computers the world has ever seen, and into excellent survival machines that rely specifically on logically putting those "real, observable effects" into actions that result in survival.

  AlanF
• 

  gumby

  : You make interesting statements. Im curious what is mankinds purpose?
  

  I have no clue. Probably none.

  LMAO !!!!!!!!!

  *sure hopes he's wrong though*

  Edited to add to DeputyDog,

  I don't see anything anywhere in the bible that says God is holding "children responsible for what their parents did". Adamic sin simply proves that man can and will sin. So I don't think you know the "Bible tale" of how mankind needs saving.

  Are we punished for the sins of others?

  Yes.

  No.

  Gen.9:21-25 "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father .... And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan [Ham's son]; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." Ex.20:5 , Dt.5:9 "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." Ex.34:7 "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children unto the third and to the fourth generation." Num.14:18 "Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." Dt.28:18 "Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body." 2 Sam.12:14 "The child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." 2 Sam.21:6-9 Let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD .... And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD." 1 Kg.2:33 "Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Joab, and upon the head of his seed for ever." 1 Kg.21:29 "Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house." 2 Kg.5:27 "The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy seed for ever." Is.14:21 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers." Jer.16:10-11 "Wherefore hath the Lord pronounced all this great evil against us? ... Because your fathers have forsaken me, saith the Lord." Jer.29:32 "Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will punish Shemaiah the Nehelamite, and his seed." Jer.32:18 "Thou ... recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them."

  Dt.24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Jer.31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity." Ezek.18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon

  Take your pick eh?

  Gumby
• 

  LittleToe

  Terry:

  But, that's just me. Don't pay any attention to what I say. I'm nobody.

  Okay, seeing as you ask so nicely!

  Gumby:

  Isn't that what the dubs do? They believe in a paradise soon to come if they work hard enough. This gives them a purpose and meaning to life.....why spoil all that LittleToe........even if they "desire to complicate it with further mental gymnastics, so be it"???????

  IMHO they are a destructive cult, with additional erroneous medical standpoints. Were they to drop all that side of things and become a mainstream Unitarian movement I'd have little dispute with them. I still wouldn't go back, as my beliefs have changed, but I'd be content to live and let live. Wouldn't you?

  ...you have a nice arse when you wear the kilt!

  Why thankyou, kind sir

  Alan:You categorise elements of my reply as being "in sweeping and almost meaningless generalities", being "way too touchy-feely" for your taste, "apples and oranges", and admit you miss the point of some of my analogies. Might it actually be that you've missed the connection? I'm happy to take my share of the blame for perhaps not communicating effectively, but given that there is a connection, perhaps you are too easily dismissive of my points.

  An example of this was my comments about being "nice Christian/Scientist". I find it hard to believe that you don't make the connection to our respective fields, but perhaps we are just wired up completely differently - which may be something to think about when considering why people come to the conclusions they do!

  I do understand your desire to get people to think outside of the box, though, as I'm driven by the same motive. Your work was already done for you, before you attempted that with me, however. Most folks already believe that I'm "out of my box"!!! LOL

  I take on board your point about you not being entirely happy with the Big Bang theory, as currently proposed. My main point was really to highlight that Scientific tradition can be as monolithic as Religious tradition. Given that you don't hold that theory as highly as I (admittedly) assumed, but that I also don't hold the Bible as highly as you (perhaps) assumed, we're both (perhaps) making asumptions which cause some of our arguments to be meaningless (though hopefully they may spark some thought in anyone else reading, so I don't see it as totally without purpose).

  EW wrote: You make interesting statements. Im curious what is mankinds purpose?
  AF wrote: I have no clue. Probably none.

  Another assumption?

  As for the "God of the gaps", I think that works pretty well, personally. I have my doubts as to whether or not He'll be reduced to zero, but if He is then my opinion is that He deserves to be. Your example of the discovery of Uranus is completely valid, but please don't miss the fact that the Religious world has accepted this as fact, too.

  In connection with the whole theistic outlook of exJW's, I have to concur that the majority appear to me to become agnostic, too. That's not statistically disproportionate with the rest of the never-been-a-JW Western world, though.

  Regarding Science as a Religion, I suspect that for some it is. As for the harm it's caused, the usual excuse of "well we designed the bomb, but never thought that in a million years someone would drop it" is likely an outright lie or at best stupid naivity. There are times when the ethics of a line of work are trampled upon the altar of "progressing understanding".

  I do think you are being a little disingenuous when you in one breath claim that you don't have much invested in any kind of belief, but in the next breath confess that you knew that everyone has their beliefs about how the world is.
  And as for finding people who are "who are ridiculously self-righteous and judgmental and arrogant", I have to confess that my own experience has been that it's a very human foible, and not at all restricted to the Religious...

  Good catch on the Marital Arts, btw
  Gotta love those typos, huh?

  You state that "no amount of belief is going to let me flap my arms and fly to Glasgow", but I disagree. That may be the case in a physical sense, and the whole arm flapping bit maybe an unnecessary tool, but I assure you it can be done, a la OBE's

  Btw, well done on killing Bloody-Bible-god. I did that, too. But supposing, just supposing, he was a strawman...

  Regarding UnDis's original post, I should point out to you that the reason this thread has gone on for 15 pages is because most everyone who has replied disagrees with his initial assertion - LOL.
  I'll take your challenge, though:

  The Adam and Eve story may well be man's attempt to describe what he saw as his "disconnection from the Divine". The "reconnection" of which has obsessed millions of people throughout history (and potentially pre-history, given the likely writing date of these documents, and the similar themes seen in ancient cultures).

  To take this into the realms of theology, you'll see that this is exactly what has been argued for pages now, with UnDis in the Arminian camp, EW in the Calvinist camp, DDog on the Hyper-Calvinist camp, and LT as the happy-go-lucky Christian Mystic (with Calvinist leanings where touching biblical theology).

  I honestly can't recommend you read all 15 pages, but the argument (from a strictly biblical standpoint) appears to be coming down on the side of Calvinism:
  God predestined some to be elected to glory, which is His sovereign right, but every one else is condemned due to their own responsibility (especially Adam).
  Quite a dichotomy, huh?
  Gotta love that bible stuff!!!
  Would you like some whipped cream and sprinkles, with yours?
• 

  ellderwho

  : Are'nt you relying on logic?
  

  I like to think I am.

  : If so where does this logic come from?

  Our brains, which evolved over several million years into the best social computers the world has ever seen, and into excellent survival machines that rely specifically on logically putting those "real, observable effects" into actions that result in survival.

  So your mind is derived from "natural" laws?

  And the end result is your mind/brain has risen above these natural laws to give you a pupose of survival?

  If so, how does your brain evolve to elavate itself above its natural origins? ie. chemical reactions in your brain.

  E.
• 

  ellderwho

  Take your pick eh?

  Gumby

  From the author, Skeptics Annotated Bible:

  When I was a Christian, I never read the Bible. Not all the way through, anyway. The problem was that I believed the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God, yet the more I read it, the less credible that belief became. I finally decided that to protect my faith in the Bible, I'd better quit trying to read it

  Anyone can make the Bible say what they want, What do you want it to say gumbnostic

  E