There are Honest Christians Who Want Real Answers to Real Questions

44 comments:

BobCMU76 said...

I think Dumas has a better take on the book.

krissthesexyatheist said...

One out of millions and millions-it's a start. Great work, again, John.

K

Cole said...

I thought the book was good. It definitely shook my faith. I'm not giving up though. While I still have unanswered questions I know that there are answers. I don't think I have to have all the answers. That would make me God. And as I learned in A.A. "There's a God and you're not it"

I still search for an answer to some things but I recognize my limitations as a finite and limited human being.

exreformed said...

Cole

Can you be more specific about what shook your faith? Give an example if you don't mind.

Cole said...

I think the main thing that shook my faith is John's version of the problem of suffering. That and when you do the OTF the Bible can seem to be like mythology. Also the problem of hell.

mania said...

read the comment by M Riggle.

You see John you are doing good things here.

exreformed said...

@Cole

Why do you see hell as a problem? Just curious to your view.

Cole said...

Well, the traditional concept of hell being a place of intense, eternal, conscious, suffering under God's wrath poses a problem with a just God. I'm not sure it's taught in the Bible. I don't know how anybody can believe in it if it's as bad as John Piper says it's going to be. I can't imagine praising and worshiping God while He's tormenting humans with intense pain and suffering forever.

Breckmin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Breckmin said...

Recently, I have wanted to write a book entitled "How to Love a God who allows suffering" (and in small print - and also allows billions of people to end up in hell).

This VERY important for systematic theology to address.

A puerile way of expressing it is to say "God is required to impose His Order and Justice and consequences for actions." (clearly "required" is problematic and would need clarification before it was coherent - as far as how God is requiring Himself to do this). God alone who is omniscient knows what exact punishment is for exact trangressions. And the reasons that hell is what it is are clearly multi-faceted...understanding first the absolute Holiness of God, the eternal existence of man in created in His Conscious Image, the nature of sin and how if it is in the historical record it will forever be a mockery (clearly an imperfect summary and characterization) against a Holy Creator Who never required payment for it (clearly NOT going to happen). There is still more I could add to this regarding the *possible* eternal actions in taking place in hell as far as evil and sin go...but ultimately we need to understand that for all of eternity - mathematically they will be possibly be approaching payment but never reach it.

There is more as to the reality of how eternal separation from God's Glory is logical - but the most important thing to understand is that God is a Perfectly HOLY God Who can NOT allow evil creations (from little creators) to go unpunished).

The reality is - God creates little "creators." We are created in His Image with creative power, as well as mathematical understanding..as well as the capacity to worship our Holy Creator.

The implications of an Infinite Creator Who creates "little creators" is sine qua non in theodicy. (no where dealt with in your philosophy class). It is tantamount to what Peter Kreeft discusses regarding choice itself.
Sin being a by-product of the ability to choose (which is needed in order to love God from a self-generating volition) is tantamount to the same concept of a little creator creating evil (sin) in God's universe.

The implications of this also are astounding in systematic theology. So many concepts I could go into regarding co-ownership and how we OWN what we create and how God Owns everything in the universe is by the fact that He created. If we create evil, however, we are tainting the temporary creation with more sin as well as tainting ourselves and bringing more judgement upon ourselves.

But all of this can NOT be over-simplified. Co-ownership itself is just ONE aspect that can not be isolated on...and it is somewhat imperfect to even call it "co-ownership" (of the good), but it begins to help people understand how it is proper to give credit to a GOOD God for our talents and abilities when we create good, but can logically disown bad/evil creations in His universe by little creators. This is just the beginning of such understanding, however... but it is important to understanding theodicy...just as it is important to understand that not everything that God "allows" is actually everything that God "wants." That would be monolithic thinking that fails to address evil creations (sin) from little creators.
I reserve the right to clarify the English words I have used above and their imperfection. God does NOT cause us to sin...we choose it based on options.
Q.E.

Breckmin said...

Another concept that would need to be discussed in theodicy is the concept of "co-justification."
(also not taught in your philosphy class).

We already know the justifications of God being "omniscient" and therefore He alone knows what is best - what is perfect - what is the greatest good, etc. (but this justification is alleged to be circular)as well as the justification that God sets the STANDARD for good in His own universe by both His Nature and His very Will or Intent (also alleged to be circular)... but the circular accusations fail to address "logical ownership."

That God owns what He creates. That God is not only omniscient and Perfectly Holy and sets the Standard for what is good...but this is justified by the fact that God "created" and "owns" the universe. This is not to be confused with "infinite might makes absolute right" which would be another justification we could add here to omniscience and sets the standard for what is good.

But these justifications (being justified by the fact that God created and God owns what He created) do NOT necessarily stand alone. We need to also address co-existing justifications which corroborate why God would allow certain events to take place in the temporary creation. One of these could be as simple as "inevitability" (dealing with eternal potential where the potential for evil/sin/evil creation from a little creator is NOT removed in some way). I could give an example of an infinite determiner here - but that would be a long discussion (and is NOT the same thing as infinite determinism/indetermism or theological infinite determinism together acting with sunergeism (intentionally redundant).

Bottom line: There are co-existing justifications for what God would allow in the temporary creation that corroborate the omniscient, standard for good, owns what God creates (and sustains), infinite might justifications.

This is what most philosophers do NOT understand...and how they demonstrate that God is clearly Holy, Righteous, and Perfect.

Question everything.

BobCMU76 said...

Perhaps I should be glad that John engages in the kind of tedious dribble that Dumas and I both find so annoying, and that Breckmin just spilled into the thread. I'm reminded of Marjorie Morningstar's boyfriend from the Herman Wouk novel.

I wonder if Breckmin isn't aware that he's erecting a golden calf. Philosophists just have different tools than bronzesmiths. There's at least some beauty in the latter.

cipher said...

Breckmin, STFU. You have diarrhea of the keyboard, and nothing of any value ever emerges.

Cole, keep questioning. I don't take shots at you here, because I know that Christianity, along with AA, has helped you to overcome your addictions, and I don't like to take away whatever a person uses to get through life. But, do me a favor - please don't turn to Piper or those like him for answers. Piper is complete garbage, a miserable excuse for a human being. From "How Does a Sovereign God Love?", which he wrote about 27 years ago:

"I have three sons. Every night after they are asleep I turn on the hall light, open their bedroom door, and walk from bed to bed, laying my hands on them and praying. Often I am moved to tears of joy and longing. I pray that Karsten Luke become a great physician of the soul, that Benjamin John become the beloved son of my right hand in the gospel, and that Abraham Christian give glory to God as he grows strong in his faith.

"But I am not ignorant that God may not have chosen my sons for his sons. And, though I think I would give my life for their salvation, if they should be lost to me, I would not rail against the
Almighty. He is God. I am but a man. The potter has absolute rights over the clay. Mine is to
bow before his unimpeachable character and believe that the Judge of all the earth has ever and
always will do right."

In other words, if God created his children for the express purpose of tormenting them eternally - he's perfectly fine with it. He's an utter, thoroughgoing piece of crap. PLEASE stay the hell away from him - and from all Calvinists, for that matter.

Gandolf said...

Yeah as usual , find i do agree with you Cipher ,specially with what you said about our friend Cole.

And sadly,also with what you say about Breckmin.Seems its so very true ,"diarrhea of the keyboard, and nothing of any value ever emerges".

Breckmin continually moulds all the answers he gives,simply so as to try to continue to seem to suit the belief he clings to.

Our faithfully indoctrinated friend Breckmin as usual right on key! will freely admit "He alone knows what is best - what is perfect - what is the greatest good, etc." meaning God alone understands , yet the very next breath just as many before him also have done, will gladly explain in the view of Breckmin the mere human! just exactly what he Breckmin thinks might be "best for this God, what might be perfect for this God and what might be for the greatest good" for this God also.

But not without slipping in a few extra words to simply admit, "(but this justification is alleged to be circular)"

Yes funny thing that Breckmin,it sure is very circular reasoning aint it .You see by your faithfully indoctrinated account God is both "He alone knows what " ,then also is about Breckmin "knows what" too.

Extremely CONVENIENT for the faithful prophets that little double standard piece of circular reasoning , isnt it Breckmin.Jolly handy indeed

Do you still really not catch on and see this double standard delusion of yours Breckmin ?.You see you cannot really have it both ways Breckmin,as that really does make for some very circular reasoning.

Dont you see you cannot claim "He alone knows what" , then very next breath also try claiming maybe Breckmin might "know what".

Dont you see what a sad pitiful excuse you use in taking this kind of approach.

I might even agree with you that "He alone knows what".

But then that dont change the fact that lots of religious idiotic know it alls like yourself, have been busy since time began , like you! thinking maybe they "know what" about Gods .Humanly guessing ! and deciding! and causing very many problems and harm and even death along the way as they did so.

People like you! Breckmin who seem to think maybe they might "know what" ,but yet then when ever it suits them ! try use of some DECEITFUL type of circular reasoning! by suggesting maybe "He alone knows what" whenever it suits their agenda.

As usual you continue to base your faith on such shaky flimsy worthless double standards Breckmin.And Cipher reads you like a book ! and has your measure ! all worked out ,he sees as others should also plainly see "You have diarrhea of the keyboard, and nothing of any value ever emerges."

Tell us Breckmin if you say God is about only "He alone knows what" ,yet then try saying can also maybe about what Breckmin "knows what" .

Then pray tell us Breckmin , by whos "standard" do you finally decide ,exactly what can or cant be known about these God-/s ?.

Breckmin said...

"He alone knows what" , then very next breath also try claiming maybe Breckmin might "know what".

The subject what why God allows things in His temporary creation that He created. I'm not the One Who claims to know what is best in God's universe. When you switch the context like this...your point is incongruous (but needs to be identified). God knowing what is best to allow as Creator (by fact that He is omniscient) has nothing to do with me personally. This concept exists independently of me. You can conclude the same concept (with any other theist pointing it out to you).

"Tell us Breckmin if you say God is about only "He alone knows what" ,

The subject (context) is in understanding why God would allow things to happen. You cut the sentence short of "what is best, what is Perfect, what is the greatest good." No where do I say "God alone has knowledge."
This appears to be the subject you are trying to change it too.


"yet then try saying can also maybe about what Breckmin "knows what" ."

All humans know something. We all have knowledge based on observations. If you were in my shoes and experienced my observations you would KNOW (not just faith) that God was factual.
Clearly I have belief regarding Christ and many doctrines... but you have not seen what I have seen FROM God (the Infinite Creator) or you would KNOW of His factual existence.

You would have to be omniscient about what I have seen from the Creator in order to deny the Creator's existence, anyway.

"Then pray tell us Breckmin , by whos "standard" do you finally decide"

I pray to the Holy Creator for protection from deception..and for wisdom. Jesus taught us to do this. It is interesting that you used "pray" in your sentence. That is why I often say "Question everything, but when you question..pray for protection." But please keep in mind this is still changing the subject to "how can we know anything?" from "God sets the standard in His Own Universe by the fact that He created." If you wish to skirt to infinite regression on "how can we know there should be a standard, or that you own what you create, or that anything matters? etc" that is an exercise in pure logic which will be a long discussion on how were know there are absolutes (and then build accumulative case argument from there). existence, matter, perception, etc. will all have to be dealt with.


",exactly what can or cant be known about these God-/s ?."

The answers I am giving are within the closed set of assumptions of Christianity (particularly born-again Christianity) and its philosophical consistency. Answering this last question would require a VERY long treatment on the accumulative case argument which begins with agnostic theism and moves to and through monotheism to Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

You are asking for book's worth of substantiating Christianity with argumentation and historical evidence(s)without having any agreed assumptions.

I would wonder if we can even get to agnostic theism through scientific observations together.

Gandolf said...

Breckmin said... "I'm not the One Who claims to know what is best in God's universe. When you switch the context like this...your point is incongruous (but needs to be identified). God knowing what is best to allow as Creator (by fact that He is omniscient) has nothing to do with me personally. This concept exists independently of me. You can conclude the same concept (with any other theist pointing it out to you).

Howdy Breckmin.

Sorry i didnt mean to sound like i was trying to suggest this concept was yours and yours alone.More i was pointing out that you faithful folk seem to like to pick and choose as you please what you suggest maybe "can or cannot" be understood about God-/s.

IE ..you`ll happily make use of human logic and reasoning when so happens it suits your faith agenda ,just as easily as you`ll also then later on choose to suggest maybe it cant be used , when so happens it suits your faith agenda that logic and reasoning isnt to be used.

Breckmin..."The subject (context) is in understanding why God would allow things to happen. You cut the sentence short of "what is best, what is Perfect, what is the greatest good." No where do I say "God alone has knowledge."
This appears to be the subject you are trying to change it too."

I cut it short only for reason to cut down what i quoted of words you wrote Breckmin.My point remains, obviously when we read whats written in your faith books, it becomes obvious "when it suits you" you faithful folk obviously do like to think maybe you might know what God-/s think of as best,what God-/s think is for the greatest good etc.So yes its obvious ,when so happens it suits your faith agenda, you faithful folk obviously do feel humans do have enough knowledge and can understand .Because we see you write a whole lot about what you feel God might think is "good" and "best" etc etc in your faith books.And you are quite willing to use human logic and reasoning etc,to decide this

Yet come use of human knowledge and reasoning to question whether God-/s actions are "good" or "best" ,suddenly you faithful folk like to quickly try and shift the goal posts ! and try suggesting maybe somethings just cant be understood by our human logic and reasoning etc.Seems like very double standard.

And these decisions of what supposedly can and cannot be understood about Gods, are decided on by you faithful .In effect the game-plan is rigged ! simply to suit your faith agenda.Like a rigged cricket match with certain players calling what cards will be played in the match , in effect providing a situation where some punters cant help but win on the gamble.

Sure seems mighty rigged and fraudulent to me Breckmin.

Breckmin..."All humans know something. We all have knowledge based on observations."

Why yes that is so very true Breckmin.And my observation is God-/s are nowhere to be seen .My observation is, its actually not such a good idea for a father to leave pathways "wide open", for nasty things such as talking snakes etc to harm or lead our children into danger.Because children are children,and are easily led astray and often in grave danger of harm if not taken very good care of by their parents.

Now please dont try and shift the goal post and try suggesting maybe in this instance knowledge of man is not good enough.Afterall im only using the "knowledge" learned based on the very "observations" you speak of

Gandolf said...

Breckmin ..."If you were in my shoes and experienced my observations you would KNOW (not just faith) that God was factual.
Clearly I have belief regarding Christ and many doctrines... but you have not seen what I have seen FROM God (the Infinite Creator) or you would KNOW of His factual existence."

But Breackmin the same could be said about fairys,trolls,pink unicorns ,ghosts ,goblins and celestial tea pots circling mars.

Do you really suggest its wise to have faith in all these things also ? ,just because somebody says they happen to have experienced observations of such things .Dont you understand ? what utter mental madness! would soon fully engulf this planet earth,should we humans really decide we should actually live by this type of standard you are suggesting.

I think deep down if indeed your faith allowed for you to be completly honesty, you know it would end in utter chaos.I suggest deep down you know your personal experiences and observation isnt good enough.

Because the same type of chaos would evolve out of such utter stupidity, that many years ago also once saw live babies thrown into fire, in hope of the action bringing more fertility to faithful people.Fertility which im sure faithful folk like you had "told" other folks that supposedly they had "experienced" and "observed" and acheived.

Yes thats right Breckmin ,a long time ago some faithful folks like you told other folks this was what they themselves had observed and experienced,and folks faithfully believed it.And here you are today Breckmin trying to suggest,maybe we humans should really be fully prepared to follow in the faithful footsteps of others relying on their suggestions of observations and experiences.

It is faithful people like yourself Breckimin who have caused these types of harm and death of many people in the past, and often still cause the harm and even death of many still to this very day.

And here you are suggesting it is supposedly a "good" thing?.

Modern science has shown how "charisma" and "devotion" can tend to shut down parts of the brain that are actually supposed to deal with helping humans in making good decisions .Please excuse my complete honesty Breckmin as i honestly mean you no malice ! but in (my opinion) , i suggest our observation of your type of thinking here proves that yes these findings of modern science do seem to be very correct.

cipher said...

Gandolf, arguing with him is futile and only encourages him.

Gandolf said...

Breckmin.."You would have to be omniscient about what I have seen from the Creator in order to deny the Creator's existence, anyway."

Huh ???

Breckmin..."I pray to the Holy Creator for protection from deception..and for wisdom. Jesus taught us to do this. It is interesting that you used "pray" in your sentence. That is why I often say "Question everything, but when you question..pray for protection." But please keep in mind this is still changing the subject to "how can we know anything?" from "God sets the standard in His Own Universe by the fact that He created." If you wish to skirt to infinite regression on "how can we know there should be a standard, or that you own what you create, or that anything matters? etc" that is an exercise in pure logic which will be a long discussion on how were know there are absolutes (and then build accumulative case argument from there). existence, matter, perception, etc. will all have to be dealt with."

Yes im quite sure you may pray to whom ever you choose to think you are actually praying to Breckmin , but you still use the (("standard of Breckmin")) in deciding what answers you feel are actually being recieved.Faithful People of old also like Jesus "taught" folks that maybe they should throw some of their live babies into fires in hope to improve fertility ,but still that dont help prove that it was actually very useful does it.And i had used the word pray Breckmin as a figure of speech, simply because sometimes to me it almost seems maybe nothing short of some sort of magical miracle ! might be able to help you see through the "diarrhea of the keyboard" that Cipher had mentioned.And yes you can be very sure i sure do question things Breckmin ,my mind is not "devoted" and (shut down) by any beliefs of "charisma" like many folks of faith brains obviously are! considdering they stupidly! threw live babies into fires and even occused and killed people for supposedly being witches.And no i beg to differ with you as i dont think the subject of how can we know anything has been changed at all Breckmin ,when infact the fact still actually remains! that we still do not even know that God-/s actually created anything.And if God-s dont exist then obviosly God-s cant have set the standards either can they.And no! we have already listened to you faithfuls opinion of this "exercise in pure logic " with regards to faith many times over Breckmin ,and it still dont sound anything like pure logic ,and neither do you faithful think so as you try shifting the goal posts and suggest maybe human logic cannot be used to understand certain aspects of God-/s whenever it suits your faith agenda.And no! your supposed "accumulative case " is not seen to be "building" at all Breckmin ,infact year after year it seems to be failing and falling apart more and more as time goes by.Should it be seen to be building you faithful might have a leg to stand on ,but it seems your faith is only propped up only by old ancient feeble crutches that seem to be in dire need ! of simply being turfed out into the rubbish pile.

Gandolf said...

Breckmin...",exactly what can or cant be known about these God-/s ?."

The answers I am giving are within the closed set of assumptions of Christianity (particularly born-again Christianity) and its philosophical consistency. Answering this last question would require a VERY long treatment on the accumulative case argument which begins with agnostic theism and moves to and through monotheism to Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

You are asking for book's worth of substantiating Christianity with argumentation and historical evidence(s)without having any agreed assumptions.

I would wonder if we can even get to agnostic theism through scientific observations together."

Oh yes im so very glad you actually have enough honesty to admit faith is all about a thing called "assumptions " Breckmin .You sure as hell cant go claiming its got anything to do with anything of proof or scientific thats for sure.Strangley Science has absolutely no problem finding good evidence for gravity and black holes and even planets far far away ,and yet stragely enough all these many God-/s and faith beliefs still remain only! as "mere assumptions" dont they Breckmin.

Funny aint it Breckmin that these Gods that can supposedly so easily create a whole universe! and supposedly do? love us humans very dearly !, seem to strangly? still have such a very great problem!! even trying to make themselves known properly to us human beings??, and also seem so very helpless ??! as loving beings to actually do anything at all? to actually stop any of the harm that ALL continually happens in the name of faith.

Gandolf said...

cipher said... "Gandolf, arguing with him is futile and only encourages him.

Cipher yes im sure its very true what you say.

I suggest its about time and indeed long overdue that Breckmin comes up with the real goods and actually puts forward something thats a little worthwhile and meaty.

If he`s actually got any real goods on offer actually worth listening to and considering , then lets hear it.Breckmin you heard what Cipher has suggested , your postings are diarrhea .

Now do you have any real goods on offer?, that should honestly make us reconsider your faith.

GearHedEd said...

I googled the word

"sunergeism".

Breckmin has used this word repeatedly in many threads of this blog.

I've never heard this word anywhere else, but I give the benefit of the doubt and think to myself,

"Self, I'm sure that there's things other people know that I don't know, so I'll look it up."

As far as I can find, the word doesn't exist. Google asked me,

"Did you mean "synergism"?

But the definitions of synergism didn't fit the context of what Breckmin is saying.

I looked closer, and there was a second question Google asked:

"repeat the search using 'sunergeism'?"

So I did.

There were two pages, all linking back to blog posts made by...

Breckmin.

What gives?

Breckmin, are you obfuscating by using a word that doesn't exist? There's not a dictionary entry, nor a wikipedia page...

Enlighten us, please.

Breckmin said...

Re: Logic

"then later on choose to suggest maybe it cant be used"

Where did I suggest this. Logic is the greatest hermeneutic that we have. It IS, however, God's Spirit which opens our eyes up to this logic (that is why it is so important to pray to the Creator to open your eyes and ears) that flows from a Perfect and Holy Creator. Where do you think the laws of logic originate?

"obviously when we read whats written in your faith books, it becomes obvious "when it suits you" you faithful folk obviously do like to think maybe you might know what God-/s think of as best,what God-/s think is for the greatest good etc."

This is approached two ways. Both systematically by the fact that God is Omniscient as well as through various "co-justifications" which are simply reasons for us to understand why God a particular act.

There are many "reasons" which we do NOT know since we are not omniscient and much has not been revealed yet...but that doesn't mean we should ever surrender logic.

It is LOGIC that tells us we "can't know" certain things and we have to be agnostic on them (God's reasons for specific judgments, occurrences, etc).

"suddenly you faithful folk like to quickly try and shift the goal posts"

I would clarify that most of the time the goal posts have been set imperfectly by Christians who do not understand sytematic theology or have communicated imperfectly because of the equivocations in the medium of the language and choice of words they were using. Often this is due to not fully identifying anthropomorphisms, inexactisms and analogies.


"and try suggesting maybe somethings just cant be understood by our human logic and reasoning etc."

Please be specific about "somethings." Clearly it is logical that we can not fully comprehend all of the implications of infinite existence or aspects which are undefinable, but described using various relationships which ARE observed. This is because of the spiritual and physical dynamic which create many inexactisms in our descriptions.

Breckmin said...

"My observation is, its actually not such a good idea for a father to leave pathways "wide open", for nasty things such as talking snakes etc to harm or lead our children into danger."

Unless experiencing this danger is inevitable and we must be redeemed and saved out of it. Question everything.

"Because children are children,and are easily led astray and often in grave danger of harm if not taken very good care of by their parents."

We as "little creators" are in grave danger also IF we do not have the eternal love and loyalty to always WANT TO obey a Holy and Perfect Creator. A good parent removes this danger from us eternally by adopting "willing sons and daughters" and saving them from themselves (and how choice is a danger to them...but the same choice is necessary for LOVE).

"Now please dont try and shift the goal post and try suggesting maybe in this instance knowledge of man is not good enough."

All will be revealed when death is the final reality. Then you will KNOW that God makes NO mistakes.

"Afterall im only using the "knowledge" learned based on the very "observations" you speak of"

But you should also use your knowledge to conclude the necessity of "a" Creator. Agnostic theism is a pretty easily conclusion - when you have no agenda to reject it. It is the second step in an accumulative case argument for Christianity.

Breckmin said...

"Strangley Science has absolutely no problem finding good evidence for gravity and black holes and even planets far far away"

Let's start with information. Where does arranged identifiable information come from? How do millions of nucleotides get put in order as to give us schematic information for the building of various specific proteins.

Breckmin said...

"sunergeism" is the belief that God together acts with all choices and observes them in an atemporal (transcedent - omni-time) state (NOT "outside of" time). It addresses both atemporal observations as well as the ability for infinite determiners and God's incredible sovereign control. Ultimately , no one can fully understand sugergeism due to the fact that we are NOT God...but there are principles which demonstrate that God's state of ordination is so infinitely complex that it can be inclusive of the variables of absolute choices of beings of volition and control and together act with all circumstances which are also observed and together acted with.

To be quite honest it is a lengthy mathematical discussion as well as an understanding of basic concepts like concurrence, molinism, (the problems with lapsarianism), infinite determinism, self-generated volition (or self-impulse)but NOT self-sustained, limited self-determining will, limited sovereignty based on circumstances, etc.

and the concept of how we are little creators who create sins (negative debt) in God's universe which needs to be paid for (yet WE are unable to atone for due our imperfection/depravity or fallen state).

There are many terms which are still in esoterica. sunergeism is just one of them

Gandolf said...

Even though Ciphers thoughts seem pretty correct about it seeming to be rather pointless and like mission imposible.I`ll try again, cause in all honesty i actually think Breckmin is actually well meaning, and honestly faithfully confused rather than just being some sort of gameplayer

Breckmin said... "Where did I suggest this. Logic is the greatest hermeneutic that we have. It IS, however, God's Spirit which opens our eyes up to this logic (that is why it is so important to pray to the Creator to open your eyes and ears) that flows from a Perfect and Holy Creator. Where do you think the laws of logic originate?"

But Breckmin you`ll often use your human logic to decide when "you" feel we should draw the line where supposedly we can or cant use or human logic with regards to knowledge about God.You and other faithful rattle on and on about all manner of intricate ideas and reasons why God might do this or that.Yet when faced with simple question such as why a God who can supposedly create a whole universe with such ease ,might not simply show up personally! and save lots of human harm and continued bullshit ...Which surely you admit has to seem like logic for a supposedly loving father to do ...You`ll likely suggest many things about God are beyond our logic ...And yet you`ll also obviously feel the all the endless intricate reasons you give for the fact he is seen to not bother, aint beyound your human logic.

So my point remains you faithful have double standards and seem to like to also have complete rights to dictate and pick and choose and rig the gameplay as to when and what you suggest maybe our human logic is actually capable of understanding Gods .And sadly this faithfully "rigged gameplay" has been much of the bullshit cause of all the harm and suffering we humans have experienced over time on this earth with regards to matters connected to faith practices.

Breckmin.."This is approached two ways. Both systematically by the fact that God is Omniscient as well as through various "co-justifications" which are simply reasons for us to understand why God a particular act."

Yes that answer you give sure trys to use rhetoric to skirt around the fact you obviously agree im right ,you faithful do like to rig the faith game to suit your continued faith agenda.But it still dont explain who`s "standard" should be decided upon useing in deciding this matter of when God "supposedly" can and cannot be understood by us humans.And that dont do anything to help you explain why its "your" extended faith dribble should supposedly be allowed to simply out-trump and overrule the very simple! real possibility! that in all honesty it honestly logically seems by use of our honest human logic ,that it really does seem far more likely! that God-/s just dont seem to exist at all .As otherwise it becomes very obvious it takes all your endless faith dribble! to try and even concocked, some endless extended trumped up "faithful" reason why maybe this supposedly loving? God, might not rather simply choose to show up! and save all the endless bullshit! that HAS BEEN and even still CONTINUES TO BE the blatant cause of so very much heartbreak ,pain and endless suffering.

Gandolf said...

Breackmin..."There are many "reasons" which we do NOT know since we are not omniscient and much has not been revealed yet...but that doesn't mean we should ever surrender logic."

Oh no! but i suggest you faithful do choose to simply surender "logic" when you choose to disregard the simple fact that God doesnt simply choose to rather turn up himself in person, and save all the guesswork that has been the cause! of much pain and suffering ,and even tends to continually work towards making many more and more people turn towards atheism! today Breckmin .Please cut the crap, you sure do surrender plenty of logic and you need to open your eyes up and throw off those blinding chains of "charismatically" inhanced "devotion" that as science has been able to prove! serves to shut down the parts of your brain, that are supposed to allow you to use thought processes that would usually allow you to "allow yourself" to see ..Just how much you do blatantly! mindlessly throw away so much simple logic,swapping it instead for endless faith concoctions and endless excuses.

Absolutely nothing has been revealed yet that you can even use to openly prove to us, that any God even exists, without trying to revert to use of your endless faith dribble! Breckmin.

But yet we can ALL see it has been freely! made available for ALL ! to see for themselves! ,that it sure looks mighty like absolutely none Gods can be freely observed or recorded to be even seen to actually even exist.

That is what can only be what can be HONESTLY said as actually having been honestly openly "revealed" to us humans Breckmin.And it dont take any faith to see it either.One only needs to open their eyes and be completely honest and observent.

Where as your supposed faithful "revealings" still totally rely absolutely entirely on your faith Breackmin.

Breckmin..."It is LOGIC that tells us we "can't know" certain things and we have to be agnostic on them (God's reasons for specific judgments, occurrences, etc)."

But no, i suggest you dont really honestly use any real logic Breckmin in needing to stay agnostic.Because quite obviously you have already decided you feel maybe you do know! why God might have decided to overlook the simple logic of turning up himself in person, to save some of the hurt and harm and pain, and in effect! total disgrace of the very idea of the possible existence of God !! that in effect in turn also then continually occurs and leads VERY MANY MORE and MORE TOWARD ATHEISM TODAY .I suggest you have cast away! decent simple logic, that it really seems far more likely! that obviously it seems God doesnt exist ,in favour of gripping onto endless human concockted faith rhetoric and bullcrap.

That dont seem like much real logic Breckmin .Please allow! yourself to get a little real here for once man.

Gandolf said...

Breckmin..."I would clarify that most of the time the goal posts have been set imperfectly by Christians who do not understand sytematic theology or have communicated imperfectly because of the equivocations in the medium of the language and choice of words they were using. Often this is due to not fully identifying anthropomorphisms, inexactisms and analogies."

Ohh such endless excuses you try using Breckmin.You throw in use of such endless concocted excuses that can be blatantly! seen to obviously overlook the simple logic that if God actually existed its quite obvious he could surely easily show up in person! and save all the problems that have existed ,in favour of your gripping on in blind faithful charismatic devotion to your pure human faithful concoctions, of all the other endless dribbling reasons you seem to feel maybe you can possibly try dreaming up, of just why you the mere HUMAN feel is good enough reason why maybe God didnt even bother doing so.

And then strange enough! after concocting up all manner! of weird and whacky intricate reasons that happen to tickle your faithful fancy ,at some stage you`ll also try palming off some idea that maybe you also do actually "honestly" feel, that yes there is also some matters about this human idea of God, that so happens is suddenly simply just far to far outside of our human ability to be understanding.

A little funny how these ideas of God just happens to become suddenly outside of the ability of our human understanding,when just so happens it suits the agenda of the faith followers ,aint it? Breckmin.


Breckmin..."Please be specific about "somethings." Clearly it is logical that we can not fully comprehend all of the implications of infinite existence or aspects which are undefinable, but described using various relationships which ARE observed. This is because of the spiritual and physical dynamic which create many inexactisms in our descriptions."

Some of the somethings i speak of are the somethings that ask why we should accept you faithful folks conclusions over and above the simply logical aspects ,such as the fact Gods cannot be observed and recorded to be actually honestly seen as existing by absolutely everyone! Breckmin ,and for instance the fact Gods could easily have saved very many problems simply be taking the bull-by-the-horns themselves , by simply appearing in person and running the whole show themselves, instead of leaving it all up to "random chance" of the stupidity of guesswork of so very many freaking faithful folk of so very many various colours all trying to guess who God might be and what he might actually expect etc,that then in turn caused us humans so very much pain and hardship and sometimes even death! and even worse! is also a situation continues to work towards even turning more and more humans toward atheism today, Breckmin.

Now that dont seem so very logical.

Gandolf said...

Breckmin said... "Unless experiencing this danger is inevitable and we must be redeemed and saved out of it. Question everything."

Now come on Breckmin quit the stalling.Why would anything be inevitable to a supreme being that is also faithfully claimed to have easily had the ability to create a whole universe .Your rhetoric that when God is concerned some things become inevitable ,almost seems like some sort of Irish joke im used to hearing some people telling for a bit of fun and jovial laughter.

What happened to that old faith meme that supposedly with God, all things are possible ? .Suddenly disappeared into thin air! when so happens it "suits" the faith agenda?.

Now strangley that seems somewhat familiar with matters surrounding faith.Seems they often suggest what ever suits the situation ,lieing for Jesus.

Breckmin..."We as "little creators" are in grave danger also IF we do not have the eternal love and loyalty to always WANT TO obey a Holy and Perfect Creator. A good parent removes this danger from us eternally by adopting "willing sons and daughters" and saving them from themselves (and how choice is a danger to them...but the same choice is necessary for LOVE)."

Oh yes maybe thats all so very true Breckmin, but still hopefully we "little creators" are also decent enough! and not so mean! and nasty! and utterly ignorant! as to dare even think that maybe we can expect the ability of knowledge of "children" to magically all of a sudden appear into this loyal factor you talk about ,without "us" little creators at least also being prepared directly "in person" to be ever present! and personally involved and sometime even be ever patient! to supply all the continued love! and kind guidence! , and not be so utterly ignorant as to not expect that many of these children will not be quite likely to also often keep making many mistakes along they way as they are living and learning ,will we Breckmin.Its about "understanding" the many "imperfections" of our human life and existence isnt it Breckmin ,and not having our expectations set "way to far" out of line! with reality, that simply are not really set on the actual honest reality of the real matters at hand that we are dealing with.

Gandolf said...

Breckmin.."All will be revealed when death is the final reality. Then you will KNOW that God makes NO mistakes."

Oh whatever .You prove Ciphers opinion with this utterly stupid type of comment Breckmin.Sadly you prove you need to go and "lower yourself" to the level of the gutless ! ignorance and utter arrogance of the likes of the Jim Jones or Al-Qaeda fool, who trys manipulating ! and ruling ! by use of feeble fear tactics.

Do you feel proud of your action?

Breckmin..."But you should also use your knowledge to conclude the necessity of "a" Creator. Agnostic theism is a pretty easily conclusion - when you have no agenda to reject it. It is the second step in an accumulative case argument for Christianity."

I see absolutely no evidence of any real honest knowledge to even suggest i should maybe even start to conclude in the mere possible existence of any God Breckmin .And whats more this evidence and knowledge seems to even be confirmed to me as being very very likely, when i blatantly also see people like yourself Breckmin, feeling the need to LOWER yourself to need to try to use underhand MANIPULATIVE CULT TYPE TACTICS ,to shamefully !! try and manipulate people and control my thoughts by use of fear .That seems so utterly sad ! and disgusting ! to me Breckmin and i suggest you should possibly maybe be slightly ashamed about it.You and other faithful really dont do yourself or any God that may actually exist any real favours when you revert to this typical "cultish" behaviour .

Agnostic theism is NOT a pretty easy conclusion when its so blatantly obvious just how much damage such beliefs have been to humanity ,which you yourself even happen to specially prove! by your shameful need to revert to these manipulative fear tactics.

Agnostic atheism is obviously a far much safer position for us all to take , until such time as some real proper evidence actually becomes available to "prove" otherwise.

Gandolf said...

gandolf..."Strangley Science has absolutely no problem finding good evidence for gravity and black holes and even planets far far away"

Breckmin said..."Let's start with information. Where does arranged identifiable information come from? How do millions of nucleotides get put in order as to give us schematic information for the building of various specific proteins."

Why the need to get all manipulative about it Breckmin .Since when does our possible inability to understand everything ,supposedly end up as being actual evidence of the actual existence of God-/s ?.

Dont you realized this assuming of matters is possibly as utterly ignorant and posibily just about as dangerous ,as ancient idiots who assuming attitudes once saw that live human babies thrown into the flames, in superstitious trials of assuming humans that regretfully hoped that just maybe this "faithful" action might hopefully bring about more fertility.

Please !! ....Lets first at least have a little decency! to try find the real evidence to prove beyound doubt that God actually exists,rather than simply contiuing to act onward like the irresponsible dagerous loaded guns of ancient barbaric times, that once even saw live babies thrown into the flames of fires or people being killed accused as witches etc etc, due to the mindless ! faith of people assuming matters through mere ideas that existed within their uneducated brains.

GearHedEd said...

Breckmin said,

"There are many terms which are still in esoterica. sunergeism is just one of them."

Great! Then you can write the wikipedia entry, so the rest of us can be enlightened, too.

Given your all-encompassing definition, and the suggestion that "... it is a lengthy mathematical discussion...", you could have just said that the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything is 42.

Because that's how much sense your answer made.

That was pure gibberish.

GearHedEd said...

Breckmin said,

"... Logic is the greatest hermeneutic that we have. It IS, however, God's Spirit which opens our eyes up to this logic (that is why it is so important to pray to the Creator to open your eyes and ears) that flows from a Perfect and Holy Creator. Where do you think the laws of logic originate?"

Every description of God (and every other god, too!) that I've ever heard informs us that God is subject to logic.

If God is subject to logic, then God is not supreme.

Case closed.

GearHedEd said...

The ONE option remaining is the deist god of agnosticism, mainly because the description says that we cannot "know" this god, nor does it react to or interact with its creation.

word verification = "india"

GearHedEd said...

I said to Breckmin,

"That was pure gibberish."

A little clarification is in order.

Those of you who come here often have seen me respond to Breckmin on many occasions by saying,

"No, no. It's SPELT Raymond Luxury-Yacht, but it's pronounced 'Throat-Warbler Mangrove."

His answer about 'sunergeism' is exemplary of the implied derision I send his way when I read his piles of gibberish (and the usual "language is imprecise" caveat he always spews to excuse his gibberish from not making any sense!).

Breckmin said...

"if God created his children for the express purpose of tormenting them eternally - he's perfectly fine with it."

That's not what Piper said. If he was fine with it, then he wouldn't give his own life or soul for his son's salvation.

I'll be the first to admit that much of the calvinist hermeneutic is problematic and over-simplified.
Piper's 3 sons are little choosers. Little creators who also create evil in God's universe and need to be FORGIVEN for their creations of debt (consequences for actions).

Piper (who is infinitely small in comparison to His Holy Creator), is TRUSTING in God that there are things God knows about his sons that he doesn't know. BUT!!! This concept can NOT ignore the reality that this can not be mono conceptual and over-simplified..since not everything God "allows" God wants.

Very important regarding the equivocation of will here. God doesn't want me to sin. God doesn't want YOU to sin. This is something you choose to do against Him.

If you wrongfully conclude that God 'wants' everything that He 'allows' then you will wrongfully blame God for everything in the universe.

Question everything.

Breckmin said...

"language is imprecise"

this should be clarified regarding certain "words" that we use are either imprecise or have more than one meaning.

You can be perfectly accurate with the identication of nomenclatures and simple sentences. This, however, is quite different than using certain words to explain Gods actions or desires.

"Will" is a 'perfect' example of such equivocation. IF you do not identify and address the various aspects of what God allows verses what God desires (from little creators who have limited sovereignty and choose free from limited options as part of their limited self-determing will),

then you will remain very confused about the Infinite Creator and why He allows these choices. QE

Breckmin said...

"But Breackmin the same could be said about fairys,trolls,pink unicorns ,ghosts ,goblins and celestial tea pots circling mars."

You would have to define ghosts here since I believe that unclean deceiving spirits can indeed perform miracles. However,
no one is writing millions of songs to worship any of these. No one is dying for refusing to renounce any of these. Tea pots in outer space can't even boil water..yet alone create the universe.
None of the things you mentioned are logical explanations for a Creator of all matter in the universe. A FSM that is made up of matter can not be the originator of all matter.

As long as you continue to give nonsense examples which FAIL to address the concepts related to a viable Creator...then you really are not interested in a fruitful discussion...

No one dies for the testimony of fairies, tea pots and flying pasta.. no one is writing millions of praise songs worshipping them...
and there are not millions of people claiming to have personal realtionships with them.

Question everything.

GearHedEd said...

""language is imprecise"

this should be clarified regarding certain "words" that we use are either imprecise or have more than one meaning."

The problem, Breckmin, is that you never clarify anything. You only spew more theo-gibberish, and expect us to swallow it.

It should be easy to explain which meaning of a word with multiple meanings you intend to use, if thats' the problem. if there isn't a word to describe the concept, then invent one, like "sunergeism".

But don't walk away, saying

"It's pronounced 'Throat-Warbler Mangrove" and leave it at that.

Also:

the thing about worship music is without a doubt the most useless argument I've ever heard of the veracity of the object of worship.

It cries out, begging the question,

"So fuckin'what?"

Gandolf said...

Breckmin said..."No one dies for the testimony of fairies, tea pots and flying pasta.. no one is writing millions of praise songs worshipping them...
and there are not millions of people claiming to have personal realtionships with them."

Breckmin where have you been son.Did you come down in the last shower of rain?.

Many people dont mind dieing.They will quite happily die for Al Qaeda,Kim Jong-il,Hitler etc.They died for Jim Jones and David Koresh and im sure somebody might even happily die for Westboro baptist or Benny Hinn etc too.They will even die for the Black power or Mongrel mob or Hell Angels or Gipsy Jokers and so many other gangs and ideologies.Sadly they will happily die where and whenever they stupidly decide living would be a worse choice to make.Even though i fully understand the devision and hurt thats ended up makeing people sometime end up feeling this way.

You are a nutty fruitcake if you cant understand this very simple matter , however i do understand science has also proved how dedicated "devotion" to any type of "charisma" shuts down parts of the brain that people are really supposed to use to think these matters through and make good decisions.

Songs are written by thousands of men all the time son, and if it was really some supernatural God or deity involved in writing them, then there is absolutely no real "good reason" at all why this God/deity couldnt simply just appear in person him/herself and simply show the world he is writing songs.

Yet strange enough all we ever got to see is shonky after shonky guru or prophet or cultural wise man etc, trying to claim strangly for some reason the almighty God/deity actually needed their help ...Go figure !!

Typical huh.Kinda no different to how folks believe Jim Jones of Benny Hinn must be so indispensable ...Folks have been using this same, God/Deity needs me ploy to fleece the following sheep for years Breckmin

These people just love gullable nutty fruitcakes like you Breckmin ...You are their bread and butter ! cash-cows .

Please dont just keep telling us we need to question everything Breckmin my friend .Becuase we already sure do ! and one thing for certain we sure as hell do question really often when you post here on DC, is how the holy heck you can be so very easily led into believing such utterly obvious silly shams.

I realize you are likely a very sincere person and mean well, and really honestly believe that maybe you are actually informing us of such terribly miraculous matters.But please please dont keep simply tellings maybe we have not considered these matters yet.

We have.

And it is you that that show obvious sign of being blinded by devotion to charisma.

Atheism aint anything "charismatic" son,there is little to become devoted to, you live and die, and yes sure it would really be extremely wonderful great to honestly be able to believe in Gods and life eternal etc.And seeing grandpa and grandma and mum and dad etc again.

But sadly simply dreaming hoping and believing in something aint ever going to help much with the actual reality of matters .So the sooner we learn to simply get on with the job of dealing with reality of our time in the present of life here on earth the best way we possibly can ,then the sooner the suffering and fear and sadness shunning and serperation connected to faith, can slowly start to stop.As more and more people learn reasons why not to waste life.

Breckmin please dont come here as a braindead "charismatic devotee" speaking such stupid drivel of foolishness ,trying to tell us people dont willingly die for idealogies ,when this world is obviously still literally absolutely riddled with such folks who stupidly still do.

Gandolf said...

Breckmin look, if you have found a liberal faith that cares about you and shows you love you longed for , im happy about that.

But understand its still a sad thing that humans cant just learn to show humanity among each other simply as human beings,and even though liberal faith is maybe a good step in the right direction.That dont change the fact there is still much division through faith that then of course also in effect speads throughout society worldwide, and plenty of other folks still trapped within the shunning and bondage of the far more fundy faiths too.And this ancient feeling of our supposed need for belonging to faiths, before us ever being able to show humanity toward each other, just dont do that much to help with being much of a real decent "role model" for all those others who are also growing up around them in the secular world either does it.It breeds bigotry and division.And division breeds gangs etc.

Times moving on Breckmin , and young children today in schools are showing how they can really learn to care about polution and conservation and fundraising for famine and all sorts of stuff.So then why not start to also break down the walls of this need for faith groups, that help promote bigotry and un-needed divisions also.

Breckmin said...

"Every description of God (and every other god, too!) that I've ever heard informs us that God is subject to logic.

If God is subject to logic, then God is not supreme.

Case closed."

Allow me to re-open it. "subject to logic" is where we have the equivocation. It is the way in which you are communicating this point that creates the restriction.
If logic, however, flows from God.. and is just ONE aspect of multiple aspects of the Holy Creator, THEN - logic comes FROM God and if God is a logical God (a God of Order) THEN order proceeds from Him and is consistent with His Nature.

If love comes from God..that doesn't mean that God is "subject to love" anymore than God is "subject to being God." Oh! God is limited because He can't be anything else other than being God. A false limitation.

For instance...if a strong matheostiacist believes that mathematics is part of the Infinite Mind of God...that doesn't mean that God is somehow "subject to mathematics" because mathematical order is (or would be) just ONE attribute of God's Existence. Whether God created logic or whether logic flows from Him is irrelevent because of God's omniscience anyway.

Infinite Order is not a limitation. Chaos is. Q.E.

And God is so much MORE than just Order or Logic (if logic is part of His Nature or flows from Him).

GearHedEd said...

Shenanigans!

"matheostiacist" is not a real word.

Google returns only results that lead back to...

Breckmin, spewing more christo-nonsense.

Not even a friggin' dictionary entry, from ANY of the online dictionaries.

That's two now, Breckmin.