Freedom to Choose God

by UnDisfellowshipped 774 Replies latest watchtower bible

SixofNine

heh heh, you said tool
Xena

lol apparently I'm not the only naughty one in need of a spanking
get yea back to Austin for some live music one of these days!
frenchbabyface

17 pages
Freedom to Choose God
Well I chose ALANF ... he is alive (the only reason why )
LittleToe

Has all this spanking been sanctioned by Think41Self?
Frenchie:
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Julie got to him first
AlanF

LittleToe said:
: You're verbose but also hypocritical.
Not at all hypocritical. It has become sadly obvious to me that you're a lot thicker than I had thought, failing to pick up on all sorts of subtle and not-so-subtle points in my posts to you (I'll admit, though, that ellderhwo has got you beat). You mistake an almost complete lack of understanding by you with hypocrisy on my part. Since you want to keep this up, I'll accommodate you:
: You ask for "specific" points,
Right, of which you've provided not one.
: but confess that some of your replies are "rather non-commital",
Here's a good example of your being thick. I made it pretty clear, without spelling it out explicitly, that the reason I was non-committal several times was to spare you the embarassment of pointing out how dumb some of your comments were. How hard do you need to be verbally beaten over the head to understand this? Let me spell out a few examples for you:
When I said that your arguments were too touchy-feely for my taste, I could just as easily have said that your arguments are nonsensical and completely irrational.
When you first made some comments about taking "an analogy of Martial Arts", I could have said that your comment was absolute gobble-de-goop. But I didn't, to spare you some embarrassment. Even in my last post to you, you couldn't manage to understand it, even though I took some pains to spell out precisely why your comments were gobble-de-goop, without actually saying so. You don't seem to understand that no one can actually understand gobble-de-goop, even though they might pretend to or think they do.
When you made a comment that your "main point was really to highlight that Scientific tradition can be as monolithic as Religious tradition", I could have bluntly pointed out that this is trivially true and therefore useless to point out. Instead I simply agreed by saying that you're preaching to the choir.
I'll stop with these examples. I hope you get the point. But I'm not going to pull any punches from now on.
: include "subjective judgements",
Duh. Everyone makes subjective judgments. Not everyone realizes when they're doing it. That was my point in saying that.
: and then duck back to a "preaching to the choir" mentality,
See my above comments.
: when you do receive such desired lucid replies.
Gee whiz! Saying that scientific tradition can be monolithic sure is a lucid comment! Never could have figured that out by myself.
: Above and beyond that you are generally dismissive in tone, which doesn't really make for enjoyable conversation.
I've been trying very hard trying not to be dismissive. By this point you should understand how dismissive I can be when I want to. But it's obvious that trying to discuss topics with you that requires you to give answers beyond gobble-de-goop is like trying to wade through a tar pit.
Your post here is a perfect example. I made many specific points in my last post to you; you ignored every one. Talk about hypocrisy! Instead, you commented on a post not even made to you:
: I will pick up just one comment, at this point, though:
:: DDog: I do not make the claim to know the mind of God.
:: AlanF: Then you're not much of a Christian, nor do you have any right to tell people about your God.
Point being that the Bible explicitly states that Christians have the mind of Christ, Deputy Dog is obviously a Calvinist of some sort and therefore a trinitarian, and therefore, by having the mind of Christ, is required to believe that he has the mind of God. Therefore his saying that he doesn't have the mind of God is a repudiation of his faith. Is it really so hard for you to put two and two together?
: Now who's comparing apples and oranges?
Certainly not me. You don't even understand what I told this guy.
: I could tell someone that I know of a really interesting guy called AlanF, that they should come listen to him sometime, and (were there such a group) that they should join the "F-ites". Would the fact that I dont know the mind of AlanF mean that I wasn't an "F-ite", or that I have no right to tell people about you?
(and kindly don't sidestep by declaring that there will never be such a group... the point I'm establishing is surely obvious)
The point you think you're establishing is extremely stupid. Anyone at all can form a group of 'whatever'-ites and talk about 'whatever' until they're blue in the face. That doesn't mean they have any actual connection with 'whatever'. Furthermore, if 'whoever' established 'whatever' set forth a document detailing whatever rules he wanted for people to be 'whatever'-ites, and in that document explicitly stated that whoever really understands 'whatever' in the document truly knows 'whoever's mind and that one must know his mind in order to be a 'whatever'-ite, and some claimant to 'whatever'-ism then clearly stated that he doesn't know the mind of 'whoever', then the very rules that 'whoever' established prove that the claimant is not a 'whatever'-ite. Finally, simply telling people about bits and pieces of 'whatever'-ism is not the same as being a true 'whatever'-ite. Is that clear?
: As regards your dismissive opinion of my understanding of science, I stand by my comments.
Then you've simply confirmed that you don't understand science.
: I no more think of the scientific community as a corporate body than I do religion.
Then why did you put words in the 'corporate' mouths of scientists? -- "we designed the bomb..." Who do you think "we" refers to?
: That you should raise the issue, regarding science, but fail to confess it regarding religion perhaps indicates your own predilection...
More gobble-de-goop. You are the one who raised the issue.
: Finally, regarding your "challenge", I answered you concisely,
No, you made a reply -- not an answer -- consisting of sweeping and virtually meaningless generalities. There wasn't a specific point in it at all that addressed the points I actually made. In this, your reply was a lot worse than the one I got back from the Watchtower Society on this topic back in 1991, which at least tackled a few specifics.
: which you have since obsfucated .
You obfuscated things far better than I ever could.
: You just don't seem to see it...
I confess -- I don't understand gobble-de-goop.
Here comes another example of your, um, being intellectually challenged:
: You start with a false premise, by declaring that the Bible declares that God created man after "the fall", which is patently untrue.
I never said any such thing. What I did say was this: "... the Bible doctrine requires that God created all of Adam and Eve's offspring 'in such a way that they MUST SIN.'"
Now I think you can figure out that I know quite well that the Bible says that God directly created Adam and Eve, and that he indirectly created their offspring via normal human reproduction. So what could I possibly have meant by the phrase "God created all of Adam and Eve's offspring ..."? Well, the Bible says that God created mankind sinless and with the ability to perfectly obey him, i.e., to remain sinless. It also says that mankind is now inherently sinful, i.e., he does not have the ability to perfectly obey God. Now, it should be obvious that the only way that mankind can get from an inherently sinless state to an inherently sinful state is for God to make them that way. Whether that condition is genetic, as the JWs and some Christians teach, or imputed, as other Christians teach, is irrelevant -- God and God alone has the power to make such a change. Thus, the offspring of Adam and Eve are a new creation of God -- one that had not existed before. Thus, God created Adam and Eve's offspring "in such a way that they MUST SIN".
You really need some comprehensive lessons in reading comprehension.
: Are you ignorant of the Calvinist/Arminian debate?
No, I've participated in debates about Calvinism plenty of times. I don't care to any more.
: If so, maybe a read of the last 15 pages might not be such a bad idea, after all. It's a bit more revealing than a Watchtower.
Not much. Calvinism is a self-defeating and very stupid idea.
: The thread has been railroaded enough, though I'm pretty certain you're enjoying it
You got that right.
: Since your "challenge" is now about the justice of BibleGod, shall we continue on that theme, for a moment, before getting completely back on track?
Why not?
: The bible-viewpoint is one of contracts/covenants.
: Adam was effectively offered a contract whereby if he ate, he died
: That should be the end of the story, period, from a biblical perspective
No major problemo, justice-wise, for Adam, I think. But Eve was extremely naive. I would never subject my daughter to temptation by a being 1000 times more intelligent than she. What kind of father would I be?
: Noah is taken into a covenant, whereby he makes a boat and doesn't drown
There are insoluble problems with God's justice in this myth.
: Abraham, also, whereby he left his land to be blessed
: Moses and Israel are later taken into a covenant of (IMHO) futility and shadows
How nice of their Father to do that!
: Jesus' Disciples are taken into a covenant of grace, where he pays the price for their past/present/future failure, becoming the payment and payer.
Aye, there's the rub! Who created mankind so as to guarantee failure? Who got the payment?
: Would you like me to elaborate further on that latter point,
If you like. But I won't hold my breath about hearing specifics, like your dealing with my above comments.
: seeing as that seems to be the crux of what you find so ludicrous about the Christian belief system?
It's a big part of it, but by no means the only problem.
AlanF
AlanF

ellderwho said:
:: Whatever individual sand grain happens to be the last down the hole we can call the winner.
: Winner of what?
I already told you: "Whatever individual sand grain happens to be the last down the hole we can call the winner."
: Remember theres no purpose.
Right, and there's certainly no purpose about the last sand grain's dropping down through the hole.
: Then it is demonstrated that you exist within the natural laws of the universe that cannot change.
That's virtually a self-evident truism that tells us nothing.
: Therefore any change in your thinking is simply chemical reactions in your brain, that are causing you to say this, because you cannot rise above the laws that bind you.
Yes, within certain limits (but see my comments below on quantum mechanics). What of it?
:: What do you think the fate of the grain of sand is? I didn't postulate one.
: I think you did, you go down the hole.
Jesus Christ! You asked, "In the end does man has the same fate as the grain of sand?" It's pretty obvious that, within the context of my illustration, the sand grains go down through the hole in the hourglass. That's very easy to understand, no? That's not its "fate". At least, not in the sense that normal people mean when they talk about the fate of man. Otherwise you'd have to think that I might think that the fate of mankind is to literally go down some hole.
Your comments are nonsensical.
:: What do you think my purpose is?
Please answer the question. Remember that you told me that I "now have a purpose." I'm champing at the bit to know it.
::: Are you under the same laws as the grain of sand?
:: Of course.
:::: All of the grains obey certain statistical physical laws in falling through the hole, but it can hardly be argued that physical law was designed to enable a sand grain to survive
: You have no choice its been decided by natural law.
Of course I have choice. I have choice in many areas. I can choose to eat or not eat an ice cream cone. I can choose whether to respond to you. I can choose to believe in the Christian God in spite of the evidence.
You obviously have no real understanding of science or of the statistical notions that underlie modern physics, although I've tried to give you a little bit of information. Sand grains obey statistical laws on two levels: (1) the microscopic, quantum mechanical level; (2) the macroscopic, everyday level. The two levels are subtly connected. Quantum mechanics, via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, teaches that absolutely nothing in the universe occurs with certainty, but only with a certain probability. This probability can be so close to unity that for all practical purposes an event is certain. According to these principles, it's virtually certain that even the last sand grain will fall through the hole rather than jump out the top of the hourglass, but no one can predict which one. On the other hand, if we could build an hourglass on an atomic scale and use individual atoms in place of sand grains, then there's a good probability that a "sand grain" will jump out the top of the "hourglass", but we still cannot -- even in principle -- predict which "grain" will fall through the "bottom".
No one knows how the mind really works in terms of making choices. It has been proposed -- and I think there's a good possibility of this -- that on a fundamental level the brain makes certain choices based on quantum mechanical principles. In other words, given two brains in identical sets of circumstances (identical in quantum mechanical terms), there is no way -- even in principle and even by God -- to predict with absolute certainty what the brains will decide. They could make different decisions based on identical inputs. That's what quantum mechanics is all about.
The point is that "natural law", so far as quantum mechanics shows, is a statistical description of various phenomena, and can make predictions only down to a certain level. Things like the mutation and natural selection that together drive evolution are quantum mechanically unpredictable.
: It seems to me you really have no freedom, or independency, and you are guided by these laws. That you can never exceed. Just a bag of chemicals reacting to stimuli.
Well you're wrong. See above.
: I believe your arguement is from silience, because you will never know the outcome.
What?
: Anything more is against what defines evolution.
Again, you understand neither science generally nor evolution in particular.
AlanF
LittleToe

Alan:
It seems I've got your buttons good and pushed...
So now I'm "thick" and "mentally challenged", huh?
Feel free to liberally sprinkle the ad-hominems.
They usually come at the end of an argument someone's lost...
I'll wait for the "punches" next....
~shakes head~
Frankly I find argumentation, for the sake of it, boring. Hence I chose which parts of your reply (e.g. the "challenge") to respond to. I apologise for not taking the time to explain that. I wonder which part of my comment "Above and beyond that you are generally dismissive in tone, which doesn't really make for enjoyable conversation." you also didn't understand.
I gave up doing thing in my spare time, that I don't enjoy, when I left the borg.
Regarding the scripture about the "mind of Christ", which I also refered Six to (1Cor.2:16, and there are others), you might want to re-read it, and maybe the context, to see what Paul is actually declaring. Your argument is erroneous. But maybe I'll leave DDog to take that up with you. The only reason I took it up (not that the reason is anyone's business but my own) is because it's a personal bugbear of mine that folks have extraordinary claims as to what a "Christian" is supposed to be (including omniscient, it would now appear).
And so, if you still want to continue:
: The bible-viewpoint is one of contracts/covenants.
: Adam was effectively offered a contract whereby if he ate, he died
: That should be the end of the story, period, from a biblical perspective
No major problemo, justice-wise, for Adam, I think. But Eve was extremely naive. I would never subject my daughter to temptation by a being 1000 times more intelligent than she. What kind of father would I be?
You are assuming two things in your reply. First that God subjected her to temptation, and secondly that the serpent/devil was 1000 times more intelligent.
Where do you get those ideas from?
Besides, when Paul later argues about this topic, isn't it Adam that he lays the blame with?
: Noah is taken into a covenant, whereby he makes a boat and doesn't drown
There are insoluble problems with God's justice in this myth.
I agree, but I'm still arguing this from a perspective of contracts. Something was offered, and someone took God up on His offer (as per the biblical account). Allegedly Noah extended that offer, but only his family took him up on it.
Lets not forget that at this stage everything is already supposed to be over and done with, anyhow. The only thing injust that has thusfar occurred is that man lived longer than a 24 hour day (if that's what was meant by the contract), and only then if we assume that Adam wanted to die.
: Abraham, also, whereby he left his land to be blessed
: Moses and Israel are later taken into a covenant of (IMHO) futility and shadows
How nice of their Father to do that!
Yadayadayada. Do you have a point for me to address, or are you still being derogatory for the sake of it?
: Jesus' Disciples are taken into a covenant of grace, where he pays the price for their past/present/future failure, becoming the payment and payer.
Aye, there's the rub! Who created mankind so as to guarantee failure? Who got the payment?
Firstly, "guarantee failure"? Elucidate, please. My readings don't uncover this...
Secondly, God, but there's a question as to how this particular contract works, as it's mediatorial, not direct (see below).
: Would you like me to elaborate further on that latter point,
If you like. But I won't hold my breath about hearing specifics, like your dealing with my above comments.
I like. And I'm glad you're not holding your breath, because it's taking me longer to write this than the current breath-hold record stands at. Either you'll get in the Guinness book of records, else you're wife'll get p*ssed at me. Incidentally, the jibes are unnecessary...
Jesus states (after the Last Supper) that he makes a [new] covenant with his disciples, just as his Father had made one with him.
From the disciples perspective they are dealing with him, and the requirements are full of grace (do I need to define that word for you?). As for the rest of the mechanics between him and the Father, they are his business to deal with.
Can you accept that, and let me move onto those mechanics, or would you rather dispute that bit first?
: seeing as that seems to be the crux of what you find so ludicrous about the Christian belief system?
It's a big part of it, but by no means the only problem.
I can only imagine. But given that you don't like me doing that, maybe I'll desist this time, and let you tell me...
LittleToe

Alan:
You apparently have a baby, judging from your avatar.

No, given that my ex is still a Pioneer, I'm grateful for the fact that I have not. That's my nephew, the light of my life
I'll reply to your longer post when I get more time later.
No worries, pal.
It's nearly 1am and I have to hit the sack, anyhow, so there's no rush.
Have a good one. Sincerely.
Ross.
Satanus

Hmmm. There seems to have been some megacorrection on this thread. I sense the hand of god moving
S
Xena

I too felt a disturbance in the force....of a mega nature

Freedom to Choose God

Share this