Philosophical question?

[ABM]

Now you are breaking timelessness! If god is truly timeless, existing simultaneously in past and future, there is no "until that time" -- he is ALL TIME. If you suddenly accept God on your death bed, he must have known about that eternally just as he knew about your birth before you were born. There is no "waiting" for an omniscient being who exists simultaneously throughout time -- there is only knowing. Which brings us back to the paradox...

What's the question, again?

 

[magnifier661]

Now you are breaking timelessness! If god is truly timeless, existing simultaneously in past and future, there is no "until that time" -- he is ALL TIME. If you suddenly accept God on your death bed, he must have known about that eternally just as he knew about your birth before you were born. There is no "waiting" for an omniscient being who exists simultaneously throughout time -- there is only knowing. Which brings us back to the paradox...

I think you are mistaking what the scriptures actually mean. I've explained things that the word giving to us must be understood by us. In our time; this theory works. God's "time" or lack therof; is irrelevant. Taking in the scripture and it's meaning must be explained in ways we can understand. Hence the old cliché "God works in mysterious ways". When he wait's; is only a metaphore. He isn't actually waiting. He is just gonna connect with us or not. We will be the ones "waiting" or using "time" to determine when it actually happens.

 

[magnifier661]

What's the question, again?

I think it's if God is Omnipresent, Omniscience and timeless; then how can we have free-will; if he already knows what we have done, did and will do?

I am trying to explain that the meaning "free-will" doesn't necessarily mean "libertarian free will"; but a more Arminian description of "free will".

 

[TripTango]

I think you are mistaking what the scriptures actually mean. I've explained things that the word giving to us must be understood by us. In our time; this theory works. God's "time" or lack therof; is irrelevant. Taking in the scripture and it's meaning must be explained in ways we can understand. Hence the old cliché "God works in mysterious ways". When he wait's; is only a metaphore. He isn't actually waiting. He is just gonna connect with us or not. We will be the ones "waiting" or using "time" to determine when it actually happens.

On the contrary, God's time is the MOST relevant to this discussion. The issue is not whether WE are waiting to see our eventual fate, but whether God knew we would be saved BEFORE HE EVEN CREATED US.

Even accepting your extremely limited definition of free will (which implies, by the way, that God had preordained Adam and Eve's fall from paradise), it doesn't avoid the contradiction in a timeless, omniscient CREATOR not knowing whether or not his own creation will love him.

 

[magnifier661]

On the contrary, God's time is the MOST relevant to this discussion. The issue is not whether WE are waiting to see our eventual fate, but whether God knew we would be saved BEFORE HE EVEN CREATED US.

Even accepting your extremely limited definition of free will (which implies, by the way, that God had preordained Adam and Eve's fall from paradise), it doesn't avoid the contradiction in a timeless, omniscient CREATOR not knowing whether or not his own creation will love him.

No it's actually quite simple. You are on or off; you exist or don't. Your "body" or physical being exists; but it's as "Natural" as a flower or molecule in the universe. But your "soul"; which is also timeless has no time. Your flesh controls your fate; which is set to the boundries of time. Your soul isn't. Your flesh makes the decision to connect your soul. Your soul is trapped until connection is made.

 

[KingSpeed]

There's no such thing as a good person. People are people. Good or bad depending om who you ask, I guess.

 

[magnifier661]

There's no such thing as a good person. People are people. Good or bad depending om who you ask, I guess.

So Hitler, Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, The Pope during the crusaides, religious leaders burning witches at the stake, the rapist, the murderer are neither good or bad? They just exist?

 

[TripTango]

No it's actually quite simple. You are on or off; you exist or don't. Your "body" or physical being exists; but it's as "Natural" as a flower or molecule in the universe. But your "soul"; which is also timeless has no time. Your flesh controls your fate; which is set to the boundries of time. Your soul isn't. Your flesh makes the decision to connect your soul. Your soul is trapped until connection is made.

Our souls are timeless? So they existed, along with God, since the very beginning? What made our souls, if not God? If God created our souls, the problem of free will and omniscience is still there, regardless of what's happening to our bodies. If God did NOT create our souls, then you, sir, have just invented a new religion!

 

[magnifier661]

Our souls are timeless? So they existed, along with God, since the very beginning? What made our souls, if not God? If God created our souls, the problem of free will and omniscience is still there, regardless of what's happening to our bodies. If God did NOT create our souls, then you, sir, have just invented a new religion!

That's what is called the Holy trinity. We are a part of God. We have the Holy spirit in us; which is God.

 

[TripTango]

So Hitler, Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, The Pope during the crusaides, religious leaders burning witches at the stake, the rapist, the murderer are neither good or bad? They just exist?

Getting back to this original question, you also never addressed my earlier counter-argument.

How can any act be considered moral if it is done for an infinite reward, and under threat of eternal punishment? Imagine two boys having lunch in their school cafeteria. They see another kid who has nothing to eat. One of the boys has a rich father, who has promised his son a huge birthday feast later that day. The other boy is poor, and has nothing at all but his lunch. He doesn't know where he will get his next meal, or even IF he will get another one. So you tell me -- if both boys share their food with the hungry child, which act is more significant? Which boy's gift is more meaningful? (Hint: Mark 12:41-43)

Atheists who give of what they have are giving their all. They don't expect an eternal reward. They don't expect to be compensated by an all-seeing deity. In other words, atheists who quietly give to others are the true Good Samaritans. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[TripTango]

That's what is called the Holy trinity. We are a part of God. We have the Holy spirit in us; which is God.

You are saying that our eternal souls were not created by God -- they ARE God? You realize that this is not at all doctrine for any major Christian faith?

 

[magnifier661]

Getting back to this original question, you also never addressed my earlier counter-argument.

How can any act be considered moral if it is done for an infinite reward, and under threat of eternal punishment? Imagine two boys having lunch in their school cafeteria. They see another kid who has nothing to eat. One of the boys has a rich father, who has promised his son a huge birthday feast later that day. The other boy is poor, and has nothing at all but his lunch. He doesn't know where he will get his next meal, or even IF he will get another one. So you tell me -- if both boys share their food with the hungry child, which act is more significant? Which boy's gift is more meaningful? (Hint: Mark 12:41-43)

Atheists who give of what they have are giving their all. They don't expect an eternal reward. They don't expect to be compensated by an all-seeing deity. In other words, atheists who quietly give to others are the true Good Samaritans. Ironic, isn't it?

All of us are God's people; and moral fortitude has been programed "well infused, not programed" into us already. Just because you aren't Christian, doesn't mean you can't do anything moral. I don't think Atheists, Agnostics, or even people in other theisms can't do moral things. The question is how they know what is morally right.

I always think that if man ever did clone another human; we may see something entirely different. I think the new "clone" will be without this amazing ability. Basically act like a Lion, fish, hawk, deer or other animals on this planet, other than man. It seems like a contridiction, but not if you have faith that their is another part to us, other than just our physical being.

 

[magnifier661]

You are saying that our eternal souls were not created by God -- they ARE God? You realize that this is not at all doctrine for any major Christian faith?

Depends on how you look at it. If God has said "I am the father, the son and the holy spirit"; then if we have the holy spirit in us, then God is in us. And if God is God; then part of us is God.

When God, breathed the breath of life "And this is used metaphorically" IMO. He injected part of him into us.

 

[ABM]

Depends on how you look at it. If God has said "I am the father, the son and the holy spirit"; then if we have the holy spirit in us, then God is in us. And if God is God; then part of us is God.

When God, breathed the breath of life "And this is used metaphorically" IMO. He injected part of him into us.

Yep.

As an aside, Jesus had to be conceived through the Holy Spirit's intervention. Ever since Adam & Eve sinned in the garden, man has since maintained/transferred a sin "seed" (or nature). Therefore, Jesus could not have been conceived from a man's seed as He had a complete sinless nature.

 

[TripTango]

Depends on how you look at it. If God has said "I am the father, the son and the holy spirit"; then if we have the holy spirit in us, then God is in us. And if God is God; then part of us is God.

When God, breathed the breath of life "And this is used metaphorically" IMO. He injected part of him into us.

Sure. But our souls, the part of us that you believe will be either with God forever (note the "with") or separated in eternal agony (note the separated), cannot be God, for God is indivisible. That act of "breathing the breath of life" is an act of creation, implying that something new was formed. THIS is where we get back to the problem of agency and omniscience -- either God knew the longterm consequence of "breathing the breath of life", or he didn't.

 

[TripTango]

Yep.

As an aside, Jesus had to be conceived through the Holy Spirit's intervention. Ever since Adam & Eve sinned in the garden, man has since maintained/transferred a sin "seed" (or nature). Therefore, Jesus could not have been conceived from a man's seed as He had a complete sinless nature.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

 

[ABM]

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

Jesus is awesome, man.

 

[TripTango]

All of us are God's people; and moral fortitude has been programed "well infused, not programed" into us already. Just because you aren't Christian, doesn't mean you can't do anything moral. I don't think Atheists, Agnostics, or even people in other theisms can't do moral things. The question is how they know what is morally right.

I always think that if man ever did clone another human; we may see something entirely different. I think the new "clone" will be without this amazing ability. Basically act like a Lion, fish, hawk, deer or other animals on this planet, other than man. It seems like a contridiction, but not if you have faith that their is another part to us, other than just our physical being.

I'm going further than saying "atheists can do good". I'm arguing that an atheist who quietly gives is actually MORE moral than a giver who fully believes in an eternal reward in the afterlife.

 

[TripTango]

All of us are God's people; and moral fortitude has been programed "well infused, not programed" into us already. Just because you aren't Christian, doesn't mean you can't do anything moral. I don't think Atheists, Agnostics, or even people in other theisms can't do moral things. The question is how they know what is morally right.

I always think that if man ever did clone another human; we may see something entirely different. I think the new "clone" will be without this amazing ability. Basically act like a Lion, fish, hawk, deer or other animals on this planet, other than man. It seems like a contridiction, but not if you have faith that their is another part to us, other than just our physical being.

So, if we DO clone humans, and they turn out to be perfectly normal human beings, will you consider that evidence against the existence of souls? (Don't worry -- It's a rhetorical question -- I know that you already told me nothing can change your beliefs. )

 

[ABM]

I'm going further than saying "atheists can do good". I'm arguing that an atheist who quietly gives is actually MORE moral than a giver who fully believes in an eternal reward in the afterlife.

The Scripture point out, though, that it's not about morality, in and of itself. Nobody.....nobody can be "moral enough" to get to heaven. It's not a check-off system of doing enough good things to get to see Jesus. He took care of our salvation on the cross. It's simply a matter of believing and embracing that. Once we've made that decision, the Holy Spirit then kicks-in to help us follow after Jesus. It's such a load off my shoulders knowing that, while I could never earn my way to heaven, through Jesus' work on the cross, I'm forgiven and have my ticket to the dance.

 

[TripTango]

The Scripture point out, though, that it's not about morality, in and of itself. Nobody.....nobody can be "moral enough" to get to heaven. It's not a check-off system of doing enough good things to get to see Jesus. He took care of our salvation on the cross. It's simply a matter of believing and embracing that. Once we've made that decision, the Holy Spirit then kicks-in to help us follow after Jesus. It's such a load off my shoulders knowing that, while I could never earn my way to heaven, through Jesus' work on the cross, I'm forgiven and have my ticket to the dance.

So there's really not much point in giving away all your possessions, is there? (Matthew 19:24)

And the original question wasn't "can atheists get into heaven". Obviously, whoever is right, they cannot! The question was about morality.

 

[crowTrobot]

All of us are God's people; and moral fortitude has been programed "well infused, not programed" into us already. Just because you aren't Christian, doesn't mean you can't do anything moral. I don't think Atheists, Agnostics, or even people in other theisms can't do moral things. The question is how they know what is morally right.

I always think that if man ever did clone another human; we may see something entirely different. I think the new "clone" will be without this amazing ability. Basically act like a Lion, fish, hawk, deer or other animals on this planet, other than man. It seems like a contridiction, but not if you have faith that their is another part to us, other than just our physical being.

except there are numerous examples of altruistic behavior among other higher animals. when a dolphin goes out of its way to swim under another injured dolphin trying to support it near the surface so it can breath, where does its 'moral fortitude' come from?

 

[magnifier661]

I'm going further than saying "atheists can do good". I'm arguing that an atheist who quietly gives is actually MORE moral than a giver who fully believes in an eternal reward in the afterlife.

Yeah but I've gone further before saying all have sinned and are still sinners. A Christian doesn't immediately make them perfect or more moral. They just are connected with God more; therefor their conscience tries correcting them more. We as "free will" flesh; can still choose to be evil; even after being saved. I believe this and which is why I hate most organized religions.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

except there are numerous examples of altruistic behavior among other higher animals. when a dolphin goes out of its way to swim under another injured dolphin trying to support it near the surface so it can breath, where does its 'moral fortitude' come from?

Is that altruism per se, or is it beneficial to the species as a whole? Is it selfless, or is it instinctive to that species for the purpose of preservation?

 

[magnifier661]

So, if we DO clone humans, and they turn out to be perfectly normal human beings, will you consider that evidence against the existence of souls? (Don't worry -- It's a rhetorical question -- I know that you already told me nothing can change your beliefs. )

I would definitely question my understanding of faith. And I can change my mind. I think I've proven that in this thread already.

 

[TripTango]

Is that altruism per se, or is it beneficial to the species as a whole? Is it selfless, or is it instinctive to that species for the purpose of preservation?

This is another tangent, of course, but even if it is for the benefit of the species as a whole (which it almost surely is), the act fits perfectly into the definition of altruism.

 

[magnifier661]

except there are numerous examples of altruistic behavior among other higher animals. when a dolphin goes out of its way to swim under another injured dolphin trying to support it near the surface so it can breath, where does its 'moral fortitude' come from?

That is instinct. And you can go even further and say how can a Rat actually be motherly to Mice? Those are instincts. And even Harris believes instincts and morals are two separate things.

 

[ABM]

So there's really not much point in giving away all your possessions, is there? (Matthew 19:24)

And the original question wasn't "can atheists get into heaven". Obviously, whoever is right, they cannot! The question was about morality.

Effectively, Jesus was pointing out that it's potentially very easy for rich folks to rely on their riches, rather than God. I've certainly seen that played out in my own life. I've also seen very wealthy folks end up very depressed when they realize that their riches can't solve their internal issues.

Sorry about getting off track on the morality thing.

 

[magnifier661]

Is that altruism per se, or is it beneficial to the species as a whole? Is it selfless, or is it instinctive to that species for the purpose of preservation?

LOL! I just said it. I guess I should have read what you replied before I made a redundant statement.

 

[TripTango]

I would definitely question my understanding of faith. And I can change my mind. I think I've proven that in this thread already.

I apologize for implying that you couldn't change your mind -- I was mostly teasing. Like I said before, I do appreciate your willingness to at least explore alternative viewpoints.