Featured The greatest error on bb

Because its a reality. Some don't have faith and according to your system its because God determined not to give them any, so I'm not sure why you would question this???

Some reject the existence of God or deny certain abilities or actions of God based on what they believe about his revelation. Those truths affect the framework of your logic. If you believe God cannot create agents, who, like Himself, have the ability to make choices undetermined by anyone outside Himself that is a framework informed by the truths you accept from His revelation, but may not be the same framework I'm working from because I interpret the revelation differently. Both can be "logical" (as you had HOS seemed to concede), but that is only because you each have different frameworks of accepted truth (truth accepted on the basis of interpretation of revelation and faith in the reliability of that revelation)

 

God tells us not to think do not lean on your own understanding listen and learn from Him and He will lead us to the truth of what to believe. We are to believe in Him not our own understanding. You believe in Him then He gives you truth.

The only one will come is those who not just listen but those who listen and learn from Him. They are made willing.

 

It is an appeal to have faith even when we things don't make sense. Our understanding logic will never understand God so we are to trust in Him even in these times. We cannot trust this flesh that is always in war with God and His word. Who can save me from this body of death praise be to Jesus

 

Is it illogical that Jesus Christ required sleep? Is it illogical that Jesus Christ had to eat? Is it illogical that Jesus Christ died?

Jesus is God isn't he Luke? Then how could God die?

This is why I asked you why it is illogical for me to believe God's very words in Gen 18:21?

You believe God is omnipotent, and so it would be illogical for him not to be omnipotent. But was Jesus omnipotent when he died on the cross?

If God could limit himself when he became man in the person of Jesus Christ, why could God not have limited himself in Genesis 18?

Well, God can be omnipotent, and at the same time lose a wrestling match to Jacob. You may call that illogical, but I simply believe the word of God.

 

Faith is to believe in something we have not seen it doesn't take logic but faith. We was not there to see Jesus walk on water or to hear His word or to watch Him live His life.

 

Then why is it illogical for God to appear as a man in Genesis 18 and say he would go down to Sodom to see if they had done according to the cry he heard and if not he would know?

Does God need to eat? And yet God ate food when Abraham served it to him.

Gen 18:8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

What is illogical is how you pick and choose which scriptures you believe. You believe Jesus became a man and needed to eat. But you refuse to believe that God became a man in Genesis 18 and needed to eat. You are inconsistent.

What do you mean nature? Explain that. Jesus died on the cross, at that moment he was not omnipotent.

You play with words. Jesus became a man and needed to eat and sleep and all other functions a man needs and does. Of course he limited himself.

You will simply not admit when you are wrong. God clearly limited himself when he became a man in the person of Jesus Christ, so it is not illogical at all to believe God could limit himself and become a man in the OT.

It is you that is illogical.

Now you are plain denying scripture. The scripture says that Jacob prevailed.

Gen 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Notice that God told Jacob he prevailed in verse 28?

I don't know why anybody wastes time debating with you, you will wiggle and twist, but you will never admit when you are wrong, which is nearly all the time. Very childish.

 

It takes faith to come to the logic you don't already have the truth He has it.There is nothing wrong coming to Jesus by faith to open your eyes.

 

You said it was illogical to believe God was not omniscient in Gen 18:21, but Jesus told us plainly he did not know the exact day and hour he would return, but only his Father.

So if Jesus was not omniscient, why is it illogical to believe God became a man in Genesis 18 that was not omniscient?

You are inconsistent and illogical.

What do you mean by nature? This is twice I have asked you. How does a nature eat?

Trust me Luke, you are not that bright. It is OBVIOUS. If God could become a man in the NT, God could become a man in the OT. You did not answer, because you know you are wrong.

Death means separation, Jesus's soul and spirit was separated from his body. That is death.

Right, I don't understand words. Good argument. :laugh:

False charge, common tactic for you. Jesus limited or "emptied" himself, all scholars agree to this.

First, most Christians do not agree with you on many things. Second, if they did, Christianity would be in BIG TROUBLE.

 

I’ll take your answer (dance) as, “Yes, you reject the premise”, big surprise there!!!

It didn’t take long for you to go full circle did it??? You speak of “reason” but you are right on track with your typical MO of simply avoiding “*logical reason” (*see below) to avoid a conclusion in your replies. In effect, we are right back to defining how “how” “God is Sovereign”.

You will desperately settle for nothing less regarding responsibility than T + F = T, which is logically false buddy! All you will EVER be able to offer is an invalid argument regarding this issue. I doubt you even understand the meaning or consequences of such reasoning, but I do, and it directly points to either your critical thinking skills or your values regarding the “truth” as being serious messed up…you logically remove truth from the nature of God all for the motive of holding to a screwed up made-man deterministic doctrine!

Luke, you’re constantly merely attempting to evade the argument using various fallacious means involving weaseling to suggest there are “unstated premises”; what you are doing is fallaciously rejecting “all” premises by refusing to categorize claims so that a conclusion cannot be presented as true based on the premises. In doing so you avoid truth.

I’m simply asking for you to establish sound premises for a philosophically logical argument to begin…to allow for categorical claims. A categorical claim says something about classes “or categories” of things. Any true claim (not an evasive claim) must result in putting description or classes upon the subject and predicate in a premise in the form of terms.

Again, it is fallacy in its purist form to evade, by whatever means, categorizing claims and establishing terms and it is absolutely ridiculously ignorant to suggest one is “logically arguing” without EVER doing so! - Yet, it is very apparent to me this is your favorite MO in what you think is “debate” or “philosophical argument” – BTW, that is why I have tried (several times) to explain what an “argument” is and what it isn’t “PHILOSOPHICALLY” speaking!

On a side not maybe this (from the beginning of the first chapter from a college textbook in Basic Logic and Critical Thinking Skills) will help explain to you what a philosophical argument is: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0073386677/610543/Moore9e_ch01.pdf

Your answer, once again, is to reject the premises and begins with:

For CRYING OUR LOUD that is not an “argument” philosophically speaking and it is a very ignorant and immature way to debate!!!

Above, I simply asked for you answer T or F or if you would reject the "simplistic" premise.

My previous argument before that cuts to the chase of defining “whatever responsibility (cause)” and God’s judgment in Truth, but you are now evading establishing terms regarding the origin of the “cause”.

Does God judge “whatever” (evil) that He causes or does God judge “whatever” (evil) man causes? The “evil” God judges in truth must have an origin regarding God justly holding His creature accountable for his responsibility for causing that evil!!!

A premise involves a claim which must have two parts; a subject term and a predicate term. Take a “standard form categorical claim”, for example: (A) All ________ are _________, (B) No __________ are __________. Phrases that go into the blanks are called terms.

You attempt to endlessly reject any term rather than establish premises and seem to think that is some kind of valid way of argument or some kind of logic.

You can’t go about to avoid establishing terms and even begin a philosophical argument; “arguing” without doing so is like what children do, it is fussing and fight and often thought of as an “argument”, but that IS NOT THE KIND OF “ARGUMENT” I AM “TRYING” TO GET AT! I am trying to address using “logic” scientifically or IOW’s “philosophically” (*Logic: The branch of philosophy concerned with whether the reasons presented for a claim, if these reasons were true, would justify accepting the claim). When say, let’s be “logical”, I am referring to the “GOALS” of using the tools of philosophy which are formulated to draw out the “TRUTH” in an “argument”. Philosophy also deals with rhetoric and fallacies but using these methods to “argue” with are not the ETHICAL GOALS of debate!

Refusing to define terms is the kind of “philosophical goals” Bill Clinton would use to “avoid the TRUTH”. Bill Clinton does not use philosophy ETHICALLY! When debating, Christians should be concerning themselves with the goals of drawing out the TRUTH not in how to avoid it. I seriously hope it is that you simply do not recognize the value of applying the “proper ethics” in debate because I do not want to believe that you are just merely discarding these values!

That said, let’s try again:

God’s judgment involves holding man responsible for… A or B?

A: Man’s choices to do evil
B: God’s choices to do evil

As believers can we agree on this claim which must be necessarily true: All of God’s Judgments are involving holding man responsible for “his” actions in “TRUTH”.

???

All causes are judged by God in Truth.
All God’s judgments are Just.
Therefore, all causes are Justly judged by God in Truth.

Luke, I challenge you to give me a categorized syllogism (a valid logical argument) which demonstrates God can Justly judge his creatures in Truth for the evil in which “they” do while maintaining that God has pre-determinately fixed the causes’ unchangeable origin and thereby the creatures choice.

 

Jesus NEVER was a man until the Incarnation, he would temp come in the form liek a man/Angel of the Lord, but was NOT fully Man until at His birth!

And Jesus was fully God/man while on earth, so limited His awareness of the date of His coming during that time, but has the fullness of His former glory now and again "knows all things!"

 

I do not believe God ever contradicts himself, when properly understood. I would give an example.

Exo 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Exo 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Verse 11 says God and Moses spoke face to face as friends speak. Verse 20 appears to be a direct contradiction of verse 11, God says Moses cannot see his face and live.

How can both verses be true and no contradiction? I believe that when God appeared to men in the OT that he limited some of his attributes. In verse 11 God appeared as a man and Moses could look directly on his face and live. In verse 20 God is speaking of appearing in his "glory". In this form no man can look on God and live.

This seems to be what you cannot understand, God is able to limit himself. He does not appear in his glory. In this form he is not self-sufficient and needs to eat and sleep. He is not everywhere at once, and obviously he is not omniscient in this state.

Now, I believe while God appeared in this limited form on earth, that at the same moment he was in heaven and all powerful, all knowing, etc...

But your statement that it is illogical that God can both know all things and not know all things is shown false by scripture. As has been explained by HoS, it is logical because it is supernatural.

Jesus is God, and Jesus said he did not know the exact day and hour he would return. This is not the only time he was not omniscient. He did not know who touched him when the woman with an issue of blood touched him.

Luk 8:43 And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
44 Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
45 And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
46 And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.
47 And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.
48 And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace.

As you see, Jesus did not know who touched him when the woman with an issue of blood touched him, that is, unless you believe Jesus to be a liar.

Believe the scriptures Luke.