 | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —James Brown
|
| | | (...) See, I knew it had holes. :) Hmm. I don't necessarily hold to the philosophy of predetermination. How does the knowledge of the results of a choice render that choice non-existent? An example of that is that we all know that I replied to Tom's (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) Then it is no longer omniscience. (...) Not to the true definition of omniscience. And if you state God is not omniscient, he really can't be considered God anymore. A creator that does not know his work is not a very good creator. Same goes (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Why not? Omnisicence is commonly defined as "knowing all things." What if the set{all things} changes? Where is it writ in stone that omniscience implies or requires knowledge of the future at all? I've been allowing for that assumption so (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | Just popping in with another plausible take on the issue of free will vs. God being omniscient-- I like mathematics. I like looking at fractals and examining complex system behavior. I made an algorithm for playing the brickgame at (URL) . I like (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) An appealing notion, but it's circular and non-falsifiable, like the statement that "God answers all prayers but sometimes the answer is no." These can be comforting on an aesthetic level, but they're not really satisfying logically. Dave! (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh, I'm not saying I agree with it-- heck, the argument that God exists period can be circular and is non-falsifiable... certainly any statement about Him which therefore presupposes his existence can be said to be so as well. DaveE (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) True, but you're speaking as though a finite creator is the same as an infinite Creator. The work of any creditable author contains depth, allusion, and meaning that he didn't realize, much less intend, but that doesn't make the work any less (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | Feel free to jump in, I sometimes don't have time to post here, and if someone else posts a more detailed explanation of what I am stating, it makes it easier on me ;-) (...) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Hmm. I'm not particularly convinced that it is necessary, but I'll grant the point, since it's a theological underpinning for most christian faiths. (...) Hmm. There's not much I can say to that, because it's a pretty closed loop. The phrase (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) A side thought; what might occur in Creation that is unknown to Him? Is there somewhere one can go to be out of His view (rhetorical point--not a real question). Isn't there something in the Bible about noticing the death of each sparrow (or (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —Steve Chapple
|
| | | | (...) Indeed - Spoken by Christ Himself. (recorded in Matthew and Luke) [1] What you're discussing here is a paradox, not unlike the debate going on around us about truth and morality - right and wrong. (I mean in general, not just this thread) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) WHY are we worth more than sparrows? WHY would a god instill a soul in only ONE of his creations? -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) You aren't inherently worth more than sparrows. Read it again. You are worth more than many sparrows. That is, some sparrows are worth more than you. :-) Chris (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —Steve Chapple
|
| | | | (...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: (...) rotfl :-) Seriously - Why did God create us with an eternal soul? Come on - To know WHY someone does something you would have to know them better than they know themselves. Our (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) I guess. But aren't you missing an answer from within your own belief system? If (BIG if) from "Let us create man in our image" we infer that man is imbued with Grace (or the potential for Grace), then it is not unreasonable to say that man, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
