This message was deleted by the player at 16:56, Mon 08 Oct 2012.

Which is my point. I'm politely saying there are some logical things that those without the Holy Spirit don't get.

Suffers from special pleading. I mean if you know everything you dont seem to require such lame approaches. Add to the oddity of it being exactly what a good fiction writer might say pretending to be a profit.

Basically if you know not only everything, but every possible everything, g_d gets more objectionable, not less.

In reply to Kathulos (msg # 11):

Your point about prophets is not sound. Prophets do not at all imply knowing the future but making predictions. No requirement they be true. I think a stronger argument is that g_d is disgusting and means it. Evidently he killed a son from the foundations of the earth. So knowing the future or not he is a murderer and child abuser

 

They wouldn't be logical things; if you need special knowledge or faith to accept something, that's not a logical argument.

If a logical argument is true, it can be shown to be true no matter what you believe.

Needing to have "The Holy Spirit" in order to accept something as true really just translates to "you need to already accept this as true in order to accept it as true."

That is a sort of logic; Circular Logic, which isn't valid.
--------------

There's an example I thought of, because I remember when I was "investigating" (I think that's the term they use) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

One of the approved Dialogues involves asking you to take a test; pray to God and ask him to reveal the truth to you.

But is it a good test?  Does it account for false positives, or does it accept a negative result as valid?

As Heath pointed out to me, it's really only a valid test for people who already believe in God and Jesus (the intended audience was non-Mormon Christians, after all, who have accepted certain axioms already; that God Exists, and that he answers Prayers).

Likewise, if you get a negative result, you must not have tried hard enough is the usual result.  But even if you just examine the test procedure you realize that, in order to perform the test, you have to already have accepted that the outcome will be positive.

Because that's a circular reasoning fallacy, it's hardly a good test, and it doesn't provide good proof in a logical argument.
This message was last edited by the GM at 22:32, Mon 08 Oct 2012.

Since there's a Spiritual World, you can be cut off from spiritual understanding from reality.

That's a logical argument.

Case in point, Humans can't hear what dogs can sometimes. They have a sort of "knowledge" that we don't.

Humans, likewise, are cut off from spiritual reality until we become the proverbial dogs who can hear the high-pitched noises of the spirit.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:29, Mon 08 Oct 2012.

There are three things wrong with that argument; you've assumed a premise which you have yet to show; that there is a spiritual world.  The second is that you haven't proven that you can be cut off from this spiritual world.  The third is that you haven't shown how the spiritual world in any way affects the rules of Logic.

Your example is invalid because Logic is not a sense that is unavailable to certain people.  It is a tool that anyone can use to test the reasoning of somebody to figure out whether it is valid or not.

This line of argumentation is as silly as if you were suggesting that there is a mathematics that can only be understood by having the "Holy Ghost".

1+1 = 2.  Doesn't matter what you believe in.  If, say, the Bible says Pi is a round number, that means that the Bible is demonstrably wrong. It doesn't mean that the people who wrote that have some sort of spiritual, superior understanding of Mathematics.

It's special pleading, plain and simple.

In reply to Revolutionary (msg # 22):

How is this special pleading?

I want you to do X. Therefore, I tell you what you need to hear to do X.

Yeah I don't see how this is special pleading...perhaps maybe because he thought it was implied that since God threatened violence in order to get them to do what they want in this hypothetical case, that by reasoning that was the only way for God to get them to do what they did?

I can think of a lot better ways to get someone to do what I want; if I know that them doing that thing is a good thing I can attempt to explain my reasoning to them, and if my reasoning isn't flawed I can reasonably expect them to be convinced by my arguments.

Or instead of the Stick, I could use the Carrot; "If you clean your room, we'll go out for ice cream!"

In reply to Revolutionary (msg # 23):

Moderator Post:

Please refrain from posting insulting things about subjects of worship of other religions. I understand that you are making a specific argument here, which is why I am not immediately asking for the post to be edited or removed (subject to review). This forum requires all members be respectful of one another, as a condition of participation.

We're getting sidetracked.

If god cannot change his/her/its/their mind, then that implies that god lacks free will.  That in turn means god cannot be omnipotent.

Now, I have no idea where the concept of an omnipotent god came from-- the god of the Old Testament and Jesus certainly had strict limits on them-- but unless we allow for the ability to choose, then omnipotence means nothing.

@Katisara GM post

It may be insulting to suggest certain things as God being responsible for them, but then one must realize that the God of the Bible himself admits he does these things.  He does all things, good or evil

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
---

Is there any real way to show that a God is responsible for evil without insulting their followers?

Heck, if I remember correctly, somebody here who was a Greek Pantheon pagan got insulted when I pointed out that Zeus was a violent, sex-crazed psychopath.  It's not a lie, it's just that usually the stories tend to paint those actions in a positive light.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:09, Mon 08 Oct 2012.

Which is why I didn't ask him to edit the post. However, we still have to handle these issues with respect.

Again Kat you confuse Gnosis, knowing something, with logic...  A logical argument can even be reduced to simple A B propositions without any disagreement.

What is your "argument" that is logical.  Or you are claiming special knowledge...?  And if so, I have a few Christopher hitchens videos for you :)

It is special pleading because it's stacking the deck.

It's saying that god "maybe knew" they needed a threat and that's why he did it.  he did an apparent bad in order to do a through good.

But, yes, as you point out.  If someone known not only what will happen, but what will NOT happen.  Then there's a lot more being known.  As such, and you point it out well, why not the positive.  Repent and... Rather than Repent or...

The argument suggested I was wrong to object to the or else...because it was "necessary" and this special knowing creature knew it.

The bible you read may say that, but the evil referred to actually means things like earthquakes, floods, disasters.

NIV Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
    I bring prosperity and create disaster;
    I, the Lord, do all these things.

NKJV Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the Lord, do all these things.’

Also, to point this out, God does allow evil to suit his purposes. God does not create evil. God does not cause evil. God allows evil acts. Reasons for it include even the simplest of reasons such as just as an example for others.

I am going to shift gears a bit here to try and find a clearer example of Open Theism that does not involve too much shifty grammar ;)

Isaiah 38:1-5

38 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, “This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover.”

2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, 3 “Remember, Lord, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

4 Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: 5 “Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life.

This is as clear as it gets.  Hezekiah is told he will die and will not recover.

Hezekiah prayed and wept.

In response (that's the key here) God cleearly changes his mind and Hezekiah has 15 years added to his life.

The thing is as well that if this was a one off verse then maybe you could explain it away with some biblical gymnastics, but the Bible is filled with tons of these verses that fit so well with an open view of the future.

Also, I am fine with the standard view being held in terms of it not being a divisive issue, but I personally can no longer view God within that old model both from a Biblical standpoint or a personal one.

I personally feel that the 'god knows the future' view needs to be assumed before viewing the texts in order for many of them to make sense.  When free of that constraint, so much of the OT in particular makes a great deal MORE sense to me, and to many others.

I'm glad that it's becoming more and more of a mainstream view among Christians these days as I feel it brings a great deal of clarity to difficult issues (even though it has it's own struggles, particularly in the area of Biblical prophecy)
This message was last edited by the player at 02:32, Tue 09 Oct 2012.

And a nice quote along these lines from one of my favorites, Stephen Hawking.

"I have noticed that even people who believe everything is predestined...look before crossing the road."

1 Corinthians 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

That is something that would appear to be true. Even people who are against the bible change radically when giving themselves to God. You'll see people hitting rock bottom, learning they cannot do things on their own, surrender, repent and ask for forgiveness. And then be used for God's purposes under His power, and not theirs.

Obviously plenty of people want to do things under their own power.

Trust in the Lord,

You again with these distinctions that don't make a difference followed by claims without evidence.

That an all knowing g-d makes a Tsunami is no relief.  Further, it ignores the non-natural disasters he's said to bring.  And, ultimately, you're fogetting it's much more likely that the "unpleasant" translation is "TRUER" and more authentic rather than the other.

This is a major presupposition of document/translation authenticity.

I think my evidence is written in black print on the screen, but could be read by anyone if they continued to look at the bible.

Non natural? Who's saying it?

For the record, NIV translation is a more recent translation using documents that are older than the documents used by the KJV translators.

Older documents would generally mean closer to the times the original documents were written. Which would mean likely more accurate.

This is now off topic, but "older" is only one of the tests... And nothing "means" more reliable 'for sure' only more reliable on average.

Again, this is a nice tangent, but: god must have free will, or he/she/it cannot be omnipotent.  If god has free will and can change its mind, it cannot be infallible, because to change your mind is to admit you were incorrect in the first place.

I still have no idea where the concept that god must be omnipotent and infallible came from-- certainly neither Jesus nor the old testament YHVH had those qualities.

I understand better what you're saying, although I still disagree. Some people (kids especially) don't understand or appreciate rewards as much as they fear punishment. I don't bribe my kids to get ready for school, because it wouldn't work as soon as youtube starts playing (at least, not without incredible, unmanageable bribes).

However, if your argument is 'we have all of this instances where there's a likely explanation and you're just making apologetics', I don't think either of us can prove or disprove that. Everyone tries to explain these stories according to their own mental framework, which means we suggest the answer that makes the most sense to us.

The fact is that with the "holy spirit" one can believe any "foolishness" including the "foolishness" you choose to believe.

Without reason and logic, you can believe anything, and that's not the solid basis for discovering the truth.  Simply saying something or writing it down is not evidence, it's anecdote and hearsay.  You're just using the "Holy Ghost" as an excuse to believe in things without reason.

You've shown in the past that you aren't really interested in evaluating the positions you bring forth to the table, and it's because of this "holy ghost" narrative that you probably still hold certain positions true despite them being proven demonstrably wrong in the past. (I.E the "Tyr Prophecy" and "you disagree with me because you're possessed by the Devil")

As such, since it's been a while since I've commented, I'd just like to remind you that I have a long memory, and I have no interest in beating my head against a wall arguing with someone who isn't really interested in having a genuine conversation.