The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

edge said:
I have a few questions for you, edge:

1) How can you distinguish between then illusion of free will and true free will?
2) How can you distinguish between true free will, and complete determinism?
3) How do you know we are not completely deterministic robots?

1) Self-control my choice. You have the true free will of putting your hand in a fire but would you, knowing the consequences? There is no illusion of free will it is a fact. There fore it must be true.
Click to expand...

You say it is free will, but how do you know it really is? You think you have chosen not to stick your hand in the fire, but how do you know that it wasn't predetermined that you wouldn't? If you change you mind and stick your hand in, how do you know that wasn't predetermined either?

edge said:
2) Know what God said to do and deter others from doing evil. Complete determinism could lead to insane actions complete deterioration of your spirit.
Click to expand...

First, how do you know what God said to do? If your answer is "the Bible", please specify which version and why you choose to use that version. As far as complete determinism leading to insane action, how do you know your actions are not already predetermined? See above.

edge said:
3) Skeptics are determined not to use their free will wisely by being unfaithful and not choosing the free insurance of the redemption of their souls offered by Christ.
Click to expand...

Isn't choosing to be a skeptic a way to use our free will? Where does it say that being skeptical is unwise?

edge said:
4) We have been given a second chance to fellowship with God the Father and the Son. A robot didn’t create us or we would be machine, automated not capable of reproducing or creating, making any choices. We were made in the image of God capable of creating. A robot wouldn’t be able to understand emotions,feelings of others and loneliness.
Click to expand...

How do you know a robot would only have created machines? By that logic, we couldn't create robots, only other life forms.

edge said:
5) There would be no reason for a robot to replicate it’s self, it is automated. A robot doesn’t understand but we do. Robots do not have spirit; if a robot deteriorates it’s done. A robot can’t operate on faith knowing that there is something greater than them to rely on. A robot can’t look to his future death. We have an innate desire to praise God with out taking away our free will. :)

6) There are many meanings to this word, determinism.
Click to expand...

A robot would have the same reason to replicate itself as we do....so that there's something to continue after it's gone. I'm pretty sure that a robot can be programmed to know that they can rely on something greater (humans) to rely upon. I'm also pretty sure that a robot can be programmed to look towards its future "death". And I don't see what any of this has to do with the claim that the bible is 100% true.
 
edge said:
Besides in the context of it, it means messing up, screwing up, but it could have been fudging it up.
How do you know with out faith?
Click to expand...
With a so-called all-knowing god, what is the problem, didn't he know what was going to happen, and if anything, shouldn't he have stopped it.

Paul

:) :) :)

And since he doesn't stop anything, what is the need for this so-called god.
 
Last edited:
edge said:
I used pauls word since he undersands it.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to your quotation of profane language but your damning of one of the Pauls because of your disapproval of his use of free will.
 
edge said:
How did you know which word I used or did you take it on faith?
You can't see it?

I used pauls word since he undersands it.
Besides in the context of it, it means messing up, screwing up, but it could have been fudging it up.
How do you know with out faith?
Click to expand...

Then why the asterisks? And it needn't be an act of faith as there is a great deal of evidence that asterisks are most commonly employed as a substitute for letters in expletives by the users of this forum. But this silly defense is really just a tangent started to avoid answering the questions that have been raised. Are you unable to address these issues? I'd very much like to know how a perfect, all knowing god can create something that displeases and angers itself and then blame the creation for its own imperfection.
 
Can we please use Paul and Paulhoff for quoting, thanks.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paul said:
Not much christian spirit evident here.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps a lot of Christian attitude? I suspect that "Hell for Them!" is far more important to believers than charity, or even "Heaven for Us!". edge is only here to stroke his rightness in the face of others' wrongness, and Hell is just the money-shot.
 
Why does a so-called true god need so much stroking, sounds very childless and self-serving.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Then why the asterisks?

To prove that even a skeptic has an inborn ability to have some faith.

I can't damn paulhoff or anyone but he demonstrates exactly what it would take to be damned.
My assumtion.

He has stated many times who's to blame.
 
Paulhoff said:
To many people treat the earth has it is theirs to do with what they what because their god says to take dominion over it.

{snip}

The so-called primitive religions don't do that, they revere mother earth, they know it is life.
Click to expand...
Yep, that isn't what I thought you were saying. I can support that.
 
The word faith does not automatically mean religions blind faith.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
At least you are wondering that a good sign. I said you have some.
I would have to type a thousand words a minute to keep up with you all.

So go Colts go !!!!!#1
 
Foster Zygote said:
I'd very much like to know how a perfect, all knowing god can create something that displeases and angers itself and then blame the creation for its own imperfection.
Click to expand...

I guess that kind of God might even utter curses at fig trees when figs are not in season.
 
edge said:
Then why the asterisks?
Click to expand...
Because of rule8


To prove that even a skeptic has an inborn ability to have some faith.
Click to expand...
This has what to do with what?


I can't damn paulhoff or anyone but he demonstrates exactly what it would take to be damned.
Click to expand...
That's not your place to say.


My assumtion.
Click to expand...
Often a bad idea.


He has stated many times who's to blame.
Click to expand...
Who, for what?


just a suggestion, but some context with your comments would be helpful in understanding what you are referring to.
 
edge said:
Then why the asterisks?

To prove that even a skeptic has an inborn ability to have some faith.

I can't damn paulhoff or anyone but he demonstrates exactly what it would take to be damned.
My assumtion.

He has stated many times who's to blame.
Click to expand...

As Paulhoff already pointed out, Paul's assumption that you used asterisks to signify a word that starts with 'F' and ends with 'K' and has a 'U' and a 'C' in the middle is not analogous to the sort of blind faith you are defending. Paul based this assumption on a great deal of prior evidence. the blind faith you defend is based on no positive evidence and is often maintained in the face of evidence to the contrary. Plus I'm afraid I don't really buy your claim that this was a clever trap you set and Paul was the first to spring it.

So can we return to the original title of this thread without further evasion? How do you account for the contradictions and errors in the Bible if it is to be taken literally? How can Matthew give 28 generations in the lineage of Joseph to King David while Luke gives 41 generations? Why are there almost no common names between the two lists? Lastly, how can a perfect, all knowing, all powerful god create something that displeases and angers itself and then blame the creation for its own imperfection? Your continuing failure to address these issues only further convinces me that you have no answers.
 
Foster Zygote said:
As Paulhoff already pointed out, Paul's assumption that you used asterisks to signify a word that starts with 'F' and ends with 'K' and has a 'U' and a 'C' in the middle is not analogous to the sort of blind faith you are defending. Paul based this assumption on a great deal of prior evidence.
Click to expand...
Actually, edge could have been having a joke. On another thread edge once wrote **** which could have been the S word or the F word. It was never clear which he meant but the S word seemed not to fit as well as the F word. Edge was implying he meant the S word. He has repeated this here but leaving in the F this time. So, I think he may be having a good laugh.

PS: Paulhoff was involved in that discussion.
 
Last edited:
edge said:
At least you are wondering that a good sign. I said you have some.
Click to expand...
Wondering, yes I'm wondering why you read something that isn't there. You seem to be the one who has the problem the word faith and wants to put only religion with it.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom