"Free will was given to man by god."

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

A wise teacher invites the question "what is consciousness." The answer is we don't know but we are invited to experience and contemplate it.

Not only do most well informed enquirers know what they mean by consciousness, but what they mean by consciousness actually has a lot of traction in the everyday world of life, suffering, and death.

[Nick_A]

Nick wrote:

A wise teacher invites the question "what is consciousness." The answer is we don't know but we are invited to experience and contemplate it.

Not only do most well informed enquirers know what they mean by consciousness, but what they mean by consciousness actually has a lot of traction in the everyday world of life, suffering, and death.

So what is consciousness? Do you distinguish between consciousness and the contents of consciousness you described as the "traction in the everyday world of life, suffering, and death?"

[gaffo]

No, it's the opposite. Evolution is, by definition, gradualism produced by natural causes. Resurrection is instantaneous, and caused by God.


Maybe. But they're not Christian, then, by the Apostle Paul's definition.

He regarded the resurrection as a sine qua non of Christianity, as you say in the subsequent passage you quote from 1 Corinthians.

this is true, but of course Pauline dogma won out in the christianity theology wars.

esp, due to Jersalem being raised by the Romans and James (head of the Christian Church and Jesus brother, killed 5 yr prior by Jewish elders - thrown off temple wall and clubbed to death).

James and Jude valued works, the former refers to Saul's works as "faith without works is dead" - so author of James (Jude as Jesus other brother (he had 4 i think - and at least 2 sisters)

Author of Mark is burning in hell now - via Paul's requirements. Mark is clear, works matter, Jesus was born via sexual intercourse, and was adopted as god's Son around the age of 30 via john the Baptist on the river jordan.

that is not Saul's view of Jesus.

Saul condemns author of Mark to Hell forever - and since Christians are now Paulists, christians comdenm author of Mark to Hell forever.

author of john/luke and matt might get a pass to heaven per Paulists though.

James and Jude are of course burning in Hell with Mark.

Dear Gaffo, I bow to your incredibly deep and detailed understanding of the holy scripts.

i thank you for the complement - i do think i know more about "holy" scritures (I'm an atheist, but do have a mind and so do value/dissvalue - works of our religious elder - i just deny a "unified Bible" and not each and every work in that codex - noting the authors theme/mentality - then judge it worthy for me or unworthy.

there are many more par more knowlegable - i recommend Bart Erhman (sp - dylexic - i welcome your offer of a brain transplant for proper spelling of that nice and knowledgable man's name (I met him one yrs ago - seens nice - at least to member of the audience (maybe he was nice to me and then went home to beat his wife - maybe/could be - he is not a friend of mine - lol - i just prefer to assume the best of folks untiled shown otherwise)

I wish to obtain your permission to collect your posts on these forums that deal with mythology of christianity and judaism. After I collect them, I wish to compile them into a structured form.

great! you have my permission, just not that "only a fool knows" - and so even though i do think i have more knowledge than most "believers" (though i aint! - irony), i know the "more i know the more i know less" - so strive to be humble.

others - like Ehrman know much more the me.

but yes, go for it, include my posts in your Great Work. lol .............and sure (i read below before reply - i'll take 3/4 of your income from said work - in this hard world $$$ is a shield (sadly)

But all that could be avoided if you, the author himself, wrote a book about comparative religions for the layman, pointing out myths and misconceptions that people mostly have,

what could be avoided (tribalism?)......not sure if you ever saw the movie 10 yrs ago or so "Children of Men"....BTW the movie sucks because no character development, but there is one scene in that building - where the gal give birth to a baby (oh my God!!!!!!!!!!! - the whole war/killing was over no births!!!!!!!!!!! and all of the sudden a baby'c cry is heard by the soldiers trying to kill them..........they lower their Ak's and the gal/baby and the guy are allowed to leave the bulding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

then the war resumes 2 minute later!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why? hypocricy! war was never about no birth! here you have a birth, the bot-grunts are shocked "A birth!" to allow 2 minute reprieve of "an enemy" - after the baby/company leave the Bot return to fighting!!!!!!!

for what? the theme of the war over no births! there was a birth! - grunts still fought! so war was one of other reasons - love of killing?/etc - not over the "reason" stated.

hypocrisy - weak minds.

Iraqnam anyone?

and pointing out the way the passages developed into common man's faith,

yes, one just has to have in interest in history, and so understand how/that dogma/gods change.


YHWH of 200 yrs ago is not the same YHWH as those' view of that "same god"

jew/chiristain/islamic - same thing. i have no doubt that muslims today do not have the same mindest of "God" as today - anymore than Jews nor Christians.

yes views differed between them back then (and within them too!!!!!!!!!) - but i suspect they would have little in common with the mindset of their modern brothers doctrinally today (of course they've been dead for 1500 yrs so who knows).

just stating understanding of history and peoples living back then matters in a great understanding if these matter.

which are often based not on the very script, but on the faith superimposed, falsly or rightly, on the original text.

"as it was it is" vise versa.

no doubt folks 2000 yrs ago were "schooled" to reinterpret some screed in a more contermoray manner, rather then its original intent.

most did, others like you and me - a minority sadly, had the mind to think for themselves and ask "why"

Then you could hire an editor to fix your dyslexia-born language. Or you could hire me as a co-author, I'd fix your dyslexia-born language, and you and I could try to find a publisher. I'd expect no payment from you for editing, but would share the publishing income 75 percent to you, 25 percent to me.

Unless of course your wealth of knowledge has been described and published by some other authors, independently of you.

This is a project I would really much like to undertake. What you say?

sounds good to me, when do you expect the publlsh our work?

..................

btw, i do like the work by the author "john" - his Apocaplypse - its anti Roman, and if i were living there in that place and time would be also. I think was was an Essene Jew - prob a follower of John the Baptist, then converted to Christianity before writing his work ("john" of The Apocalypes is NOT the same man - not the same "John" that wrote Gosp of John (both the theology and the language used differs too much - author of Gospel know Greek well, author of Apocalypse did not (being a jew - imo).



I do not dissparage author of Apocalypse to claim Satan is the Snake - his work is about justice - fight the romans who kill us - i personally think the equation of the two entities was done a century or 2 earlier, and he was just relying what had been equated as one (though of course he was in erronous)

[gaffo]

nope about the Tok NOT being the same thing as ToW. from simply reading of Genesis one can equate the ToK as giving man "Self awarness".............and so wisdom.

Simply read, and you'll see...

Gen. 2: 9 -- "The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Only two of the many trees are identified in specific.

I'm not one to champion symantics, i still equate "tree of knowlege" with "wisdon" and view it as the same.


we can go into "is YHWH = El" or not too if you wish, the Torah refers to this dispute several times. for under Cannite Pantheon El is "father god", mot, baal. 7-9 others/etc are his son/daughters.

then some camp came out of Egypt claiming Ya (YHWH) was "god" - El.

there must have been some dispute over this matter, since the Torah goes out of it's way to proclaim they are one and the same god.

[gaffo]

Nick wrote:

A wise teacher invites the question "what is consciousness." The answer is we don't know but we are invited to experience and contemplate it.

Not only do most well informed enquirers know what they mean by consciousness,

they do?

I don't.

even though a Solipsist - and so assume i am alone in my consciousness.

but what they mean by consciousness actually has a lot of traction in the everyday world of life, suffering, and death.

now you sound like a Buddhist rather than the Christian you are.

i find both faiths offer wisdom - minus the gods they affirm - I'm a Buddhist Atheist myself.

[Immanuel Can]

Why bring the sacred down to the level of the secular?

Why diminish the sacred by saying, "it can ONLY be a metaphor"?

There were a whole lot of things that were literal that are also figurative.

What's a "eureka"moment? What's a "Maginot Line"? What does it mean to "cross your Rubicon," or "meet your Waterloo"? Are those metaphors less powerful because they were also real...or is the only reason they are powerful metaphors BECAUSE they were real?

Worth considering?

Kabbalists believe that the Light created on the first day of creation was not light as we know it; it was consciousness.

We must respect what the narrative gives us, and what it does not allow us to think. Even if we insist "it's only a metaphor," then it cannot be a metaphor for something it definitely does not imply, can it?

That interpretation is not narratively plausible. There was no Earth and no creatures upon which "consciousness" could have dawned. We can safely rule that one out.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not one to champion symantics, i still equate "tree of knowlege" with "wisdon" and view it as the same.

"Semantics," "knowledge" and "wisdom," you mean? What are you typing on, that makes so many mistakes?

You are, of course, quite free to "equate" contrary to logic and the specifics of the text. But I'd choose not to.

[Justintruth]

"Free will was given to man by god." This I often hear from theists. I searched the bible and found no support for this from the word of the supposed god.

So this is inference? Or did I miss something.

Will Guffo or somebody else please tell me where the idea of "free will" emerged in christian thinking, and what Christians use as explanation to it in the bible?

There is no logical connection between a volitional act and any outcome. All action is possible only supported by the contingent facts that form the basis of what we call our our capabilities. Further, our contingent natures include volition itself. No volition of a contingent being exists necessarily.

If you believe that contingent fact requires a necessary Being and call that Being God then you have the answer independent of any particular religious tradition.

This line of reasoning decouples the issue from the will itself and transfers it to the nature of creation ex nihilo.

It is because both our capabilities and our volition itself requires the "gift of creation" to be that the statement is made.

Now why we call it a gift is interesting but out of scope.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no logical connection between a volitional act and any outcome.

That can't be quite true, can it?

I mean, we all undertake volitional decisions aimed at particular outcomes, like brushing our teeth so that they don't decay (as quickly). If there were no logical connection between brushing and tooth maintenance, we'd all be mad to do that, wouldn't we?

So there must be a logical connection, like perhaps a rational link between action (in the first place, tooth cleaning) and certain particular material conditions (in the second, decay prevention), but not perhaps an absolute necessary causal relationship between material conditions in the first place, and volition in the second.

[Belinda]

Nick wrote:

A wise teacher invites the question "what is consciousness." The answer is we don't know but we are invited to experience and contemplate it.

Not only do most well informed enquirers know what they mean by consciousness,

they do?

I don't.

even though a Solipsist - and so assume i am alone in my consciousness.

but what they mean by consciousness actually has a lot of traction in the everyday world of life, suffering, and death.

now you sound like a Buddhist rather than the Christian you are.

i find both faiths offer wisdom - minus the gods they affirm - I'm a Buddhist Atheist myself.

When I say "consciousness has a lot of traction" I refer to science and clinical practise not "faiths".

[Sculptor]

I think this directly addresses your question
From the "Skeptics bible"

What the Bible says about Free Will
God determines who is going to heaven ...
And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. -- Acts 13:48
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." -- 2 Timothy 1:9
He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5
God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13
and who is going to hell.
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned. -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation. -- Jude 4
There's nothing you can do about it.
For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. -- Romans 9:11-22


http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_ ... _will.html

[gaffo]

I'm not one to champion symantics, i still equate "tree of knowlege" with "wisdon" and view it as the same.

"Semantics," "knowledge" and "wisdom," you mean? What are you typing on, that makes so many mistakes?

You are, of course, quite free to "equate" contrary to logic and the specifics of the text. But I'd choose not to.

pettiness of reply noted, i now know more of your character - and take note of.

and that you did not actually offered any reply of substance - other than to be an egoist and snipe at my inablity to spell.

i.e. so you offer noting of substance, and show your lower level character in your egoistic snipping.

i thank you for the latter, for now i know your nature and so can note less from anything you may offer here in this forum.

thanks for the snipes bubba, does it make you feel better playing the bully (your self image must be small) and not offering anything more than that in this thread?

jerk.

[Immanuel Can]

...snipe at my inablity to spell.

I was wondering if you had a small, handheld device, the sort of thing that would cause such errors. I was not assuming the errors were yours.

But if you say they are, then I'll believe you.

[gaffo]

...snipe at my inablity to spell.

I was wondering if you had a small, handheld device, the sort of thing that would cause such errors. I was not assuming the errors were yours.

But if you say they are, then I'll believe you.

I'm mild (thankfully) Dyslexic (shoot the asshat that spelled my problem with such spelled - though i do like black humor (this is indeed bleak/black humor though).

And.

when i show up here on this forum i'm usually drunk. 6 beers or more.

so add the two and you get my spelling.

.....................

as for handheld devises, shoot me the minute i get a "smart"phone in my hands. I see all sorts of "smart addicts" fucking with god damned phones while driving! - killing - who many now 1000's or 10 of ----too fucking busy with reading the next mindless facefuck/twit posts about nothing of import - while killing a motorcyclist/scooterist behind the wheel.

I have a small scooter and motorcycle (monkey-bike) - so take it personally - when i see some mindless "smartphone fucking mindless addict" driving (i see EVERY DAY - to and from work) WORST than a drunk! (I drink, but do not drive - if i need something after drunk - like now - i fucking walk!)

[Immanuel Can]

I'm mild (thankfully) Dyslexic...and....when i show up here on this forum i'm usually drunk. 6 beers or more.

so add the two and you get my spelling.

Okay. That makes sense.