Free will without proof isn't really free will

I contend that there are ample, objective historical reasons to trust the Bible alone as an authoritative source of spiritual truth.

You are free to choose whether to trust in God's revelation to mankind.

 

God did leave somthing solid, it's called the Bible, but you have to read it first. It is in the Bible where you will find Jesus fulfilling over three hundred of the Old Testament prophecies concerning His life, death, and resurrection. All of these prophecies were written over 400 years before Jesus Christ was even born. Many other prophecies in the Bible are recorded about the last days. And many of those prophecies are coming to pass in the day we live.

 

that statement right there clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of the christian faith.

 

Me "If you believe in God you would just pick the path you would rather take and expect God to have prepared it (your path) before you (even if it leads through death)."

Psalm 23:4 "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; Your rod and your staff, they comfort me."

Proverbs 3:5,6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight."

Isaiah 42:16 "I will lead the blind by ways they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them."

 

[/QUOTE]Bill, you choose left or right. You can see left, you can see right. You know the difference. You use your free will to decide.

You do not have the free will to choose whether or not to head for the water, because you don't know where it is. Just as you do not have the free will to choose to follow the path to god.

You must have "faith" (ps. I don't understand your redefinition of faith) and follow the path you severely hope has the water at the end. You don't get the free will to choose (eternal) life or death.[/QUOTE]
This part was meant for you Bill. Sorry if my other post seemed confrontational, I was drunk.

Huck Finn + Campbell. I'm sure your faith in the validity of the bible is strong, but you can hardly say it's a proven fact. people from other religions could just as easily use your argument that god has left solid proof in the form of their book, so looked at objectively, looking at all the alleged evidence, as opposed to just the bible. It's really very ambiguois what god's will is.

It may seem clear if you disregard everything but the bible beforehand but that's hardly the point. You can believe, but as far as I'm aware, you cannot PROVE either to yourself or anyone else that the bible is an "authorative source of spiritual truth".

Strong as your convictions are, they're no kind of evidence. Withou any kind of certainty, your free-will is completely devalued. If god wanted us to have a true choice to follow his path or not he'd have to show, undoubtably, what he wanted. We only have the free-will to guess and hope.

I agree with you Kharakov, god leads people to the faith they're supposed to follow.

Admittedly, I cannot quote you any holy texts that say they are the only word of god, but I'm pretty sure that most of the main ones do- Muslim, ~Judaism, Hindu etc. Is that not true?

 

that's better, now that you've added in your corrections i can agree with you.

 

rofl
I didn't change my statement at all. I didn't add corrections, I added quotes to show that your statement was incorrect.

I think that you will find that the only lack of undertanding shown was your own.

 

Now that is a great example of being disagreeable to a fault. Here you have someone that was against you, opposed to your view, saying that now your point makes sense and that some common ground has been found....eureka!

And your response.......blow it all to hell. I have a theory.....were you in charge of the NHL negotiations? Or maybe the Israel/Palestine negotiations? If not then I am certain that you must have been involved in the US/Canada softwood lumber talks. I am baffled as to the usefulness or reason for you last post to kc. The point of your posting a reply to refute the agreement and then claim you're correct and kc is wrong, and even more so, that kc alone lacks understanding, is beyond me.
Tell me this is some form of dry humour, you were being sarcastic, right?
Seriously, you were joking?

 

well, and the simple fact is that he DID add in some stuff, the parenthetical comments. but whatever.

 

Nothing of the sort. Unless you believe it is disagreeable to point out that someone is avoiding admitting they were wrong about something? In which case, you, and everyone else who cannot stand to admit they were wrong about something will find me very disagreeable.

They were wrong all along, and they acknowledged it by saying that I changed (corrected) my comment, which I did not. I instead copied my statement verbatim and added quotes from a book about the faith that they claimed I did not understand.

No, but my girlfriend works for USair (formerly known as Usairways) and is a union member.

Someone far more malevolent than me is in charge of those negotiations.

Ok, got me there.

I never said only kc lacked understanding. I said the only lack of understanding shown was kc's own, which is an entirely different thing.

I never joke about anything. That you insinuate I would tell a joke is insulting, at best, and a deliberate attempt to slander me, at worst.

 

To correct implies something was wrong with my original statement.

Adding something to show you that you were wrong is an entirely different type of horse altogether...

 

Hello Bloke!

That's a great post.

The cards are stacked! The joke's on us. Isn't that funny?

Plus how could you have freewill if something breaks or goes wrong and your plans don't work out? Ya the basic response is, "well you are free in how you choose to react." But what the heck is that? That's like 90% free will. How could free will be only 90%?

cheers

 

lol. dude, your additions totally changed your statement! that's funny, though.

edited to add (see how i did that?) that what i think is so funny is that he blames his lack of proper communication on my supposed lack of understanding. if you wish to be understood, you must communicate your meaning more clearly.

 

, glad you laughed. Really though, my statement was exactly the same, the only things I added were quotes from the book the xian faith is based upon to show that my statement did not in fact indicate a misunderstanding of the xian faith as you incorrectly claimed.

Umm, I did... My original statement was this: "If you believe in God you would just pick the path you would rather take and expect God to have prepared it (your path) before you (even if it leads through death)."

Is that unclear to you?

Your incorrect statement was this: "that statement right there clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of the christian faith."

So I quoted the bible at you (just the way Satan, I mean, I like to) to indicate your lack of understanding of the xian faith (my statement is supported by the passages that I quoted).

Thanks for the entertainment...

 

you're a hoot, man.

 

I love you too...

 

we should go make argumentative babies. it'll be a total new race of mule headed humans.

 

Or stubborn thoughts. Instead of naming the baby Mimi, we can name it Meme.

 

and the first words out of his mouth will be "YOU ARE WONG!" (cause he has a hard time with his r's)

 

I never said only kc lacked understanding. I said the only lack of understanding shown was kc's own, which is an entirely different thing.

Quote:
Tell me this is some form of dry humour, you were being sarcastic, right?
Seriously, you were joking?
I never joke about anything. That you insinuate I would tell a joke is insulting, at best, and a deliberate attempt to slander me, at worst. Kharakov



I must first state that I would never deliberately slander anyone, and though I have intentionally insulted others on rare occasions, I had not meant to do so with my last post. I was hoping, (fully knowing it was a slim chance), that you were being sarcastic. Many times I miss the sarcasm of others, so I was just making sure, and did not mean to offend. If you feel that my query was in any way slanderous, I take it back. I don't want to know the answer that badly.
As an aside, you may not realize it, but many of your posts are quite insulting to Christians, when you use 'xians' in reference to them, or when you write things like:
'So I quoted the bible at you (just the way Satan, I mean, I like to)'. Kharakov
.
Don't you think that it is a good idea to apply the same standards you ask of others to your own posts? Not that I care really.

As for the difference between saying one lacks understanding, and saying that the only lack of understanding shown was theirs........you say it is entirely different. I can't see any difference worth noting.