DeepSight:
disease and natural disasters?

Yes, not just only disease and natural disasters, but including warts, spots, moles, pimples, in fact the whole shebang.

Listen to this, how do you understand this figure of speech, 'Hi ladies and gents'?
Can you relate the 'Hi ladies and gents' figure of speech with this other figure of speech 'Tree of Evil and Good'?

If you know what the term is or the name of these two examples of this particular type of figure of speech, please tell whats it called

DeepSight:
Besides, can you really explain to me what would be abnormal use of freewill.

1 Corinthians 6:12
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

Or, someone will say, "I am allowed to do anything." Yes; but not everything is good for you. I could say that I am allowed to do anything, but I am not going to let anything make me its slave.

It would be an abuse of freewill to have sex with a baby, just for an example and to say a least.

Freewill that doesn't exercise self restraint is an abnormal use of freewill

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

DeepSight:


Who set that system in place? Nobody?

The monarch of Zion. As creation, we have a responsibility to align with the set systems or deal with the consequences of not aligning.

ThothHermes:
The monarch of Zion. As creation, we have a responsibility to align with the set systems or deal with the consequences of not aligning.

With this I think we can comfortably end any pretense to freewill as allegedly bequeathed by God to man.

ThothHermes:
The monarch of Zion. As creation, we have a responsibility to align with the set systems or deal with the consequences of not aligning.

DeepSight:
With this I think we can comfortably end any pretense to freewill as allegedly bequeathed by God to man.

You personally, do you believe you have freewill or not, as bequeathed by God to every human being?

Must caution you though, that you do not have to say anything in reply to the question, but, that it may harm your defence if you do not say anything and even that, anything you do say, may require it and you, be subjected to a test, loll.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

DeepSight:


With this I think we can comfortably end any pretense to freewill as allegedly bequeathed by God to man.

You want freewill without consequences

NNTR:
Yes, not just only disease and natural disasters, but including warts, spots, moles, pimples, in fact the whole shebang.

How is that so?

I hope you are not one of those persons who is so anthroporcentric in every discussion that one may not ask for the justification of animal suffering. Because animals do suffer, and a great deal too, and it seems to me a most lame response to allege that the original sin of mankind is responsible for the suffering of animals.

This is unreasonable and unsupportable on many grounds, but just to point out one, animals are subject to the same laws of sustenance as humans are and caarnivorous animals will hunt down and consume other animals for sustenance. There is suffering in this - but also a cyclical ecosystem therein. Who could allege that such exists only on account of the sin of man? Absurdity, surely.

I used to have a friend who made this same contention you are making, he said fleas, mosquitoes, worms, maggots, et all exist only because of the sin of man. I was shocked that he did not know that such horrible creature also play a role in the ecosystem.

Listen to this, how do you understand this figure of speech, 'Hi ladies and gents'?
Can you relate the 'Hi ladies and gents' figure of speech with this other figure of speech 'Tree of Evil and Good'?

If you know what the term is or the name of these two examples of this particular type of figure of speech, please tell whats it called

Juxtaposition, probably, but I dont know where you are heading with this, please kindly make yourself clear, thank you.

1 Corinthians 6:12
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

Or, someone will say, "I am allowed to do anything." Yes; but not everything is good for you. I could say that I am allowed to do anything, but I am not going to let anything make me its slave.

It would be an abuse of freewill to have sex with a baby, just for an example and to say a least.

Freewill that doesn't exercise self restraint is an abnormal use of freewill

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

The truth is that one is not saying that freewill should equate freedom from consequences. However one is saying that the basket of choices available to be made has already been preset by the creator and under-girded by in-built, pre-programmed proclivities which form an iron-cast set of rules by which man must live and thus give a lie to any alleged freewill.

Those programs include the hormones in your body which dictate several unavoidables - hunger and consumption, fatigue and rest, circadian cycle and rest, menstrual cycles and ovulation, libido and sex, and many more. You do not have any freewill in these matters my friend.

ThothHermes:
You want freewill without consequences

As I just wrote to another poster above - The truth is that one is not saying that freewill should equate freedom from consequences. However one is saying that the basket of choices available to be made has already been preset by the creator and under-girded by in-built, pre-programmed proclivities which form an iron-cast set of rules by which man must live and thus give a lie to any alleged freewill.

Having said that, one must nonetheless note that the sort of consequences preached in your scripture and advanced by much of your religion are quite over the top, and verily ground an argument that any entity advancing those types of sadistic consequences cannot be said to be bequeathing any freewill whatsoever.

NNTR:


You personally, do you believe you have freewill or not, as bequeathed by God to every human being?

Must caution you though, that you do not have to say anything in reply to the question, but, that it may harm your defence if you do not say anything and even that, anything you do say, may require it and you, be subjected to a test, loll.

Lol, smart-alec play understood, but I must tell you sincerely that as an agnostic deist I make no presumptions whatsoever about the nature of the reality in which I live, which, for all I know, could well be a simulation or a dream or a dream within a dream within a dream, or the whimsical imagination of a wood-fairy or a fleeting thought of an elf, a troll or a god.

Candle in the wind, I know not, I presume not.

DeepSight:
How is that so?

Dont you know that, that's exactly what the TKGE advertised?

Let stall a little bit here. I am sure you have used the figure of speech 'Hi Ladies & Gentlemen, thank you, but please sit down' before or remotely close version to that. Now tell, when you said '... Ladies & Gentlemen ...' what were you implying. What can be deduced from hearing '... Ladies & Gentlemen ...' in that figure of speech?, loll.

DeepSight:
I hope you are not one of those persons who is so anthroporcentric in every discussion that one may not ask for the justification of animal suffering. Because animals do suffer, and a great deal too, and it seems to me a most lame response to allege that the original sin of mankind is responsible for the suffering of animals.

Dont you think its too early to be suspecting me of being anthropocentric?

If you put your focus on the name of the tree whose fruit, A&E were told not to eat from, then you will see how suffering was introduced right across board on earth, loll.

DeepSight:
This is unreasonable and unsupportable on many grounds, but just to point out one, animals are subject to the same laws of sustenance as humans are and caarnivorous animals will hunt down and consume other animals for sustenance. There is suffering in this - but also a cyclical ecosystem therein. Who could allege that such exists only on account of the sin of man? Absurdity, surely.

You're allowing your emotion get the better of you, loll.

DeepSight:
I used to have a friend you made this same contention you are making, he said fleas, mosquitoes, worms, maggots, et all exist only because of the sin of man. I was shocked that he did not know that such horrible creature also play a role in the ecosystem.

You're strawminning. I never and havent made any same contention as your dear old friend. I wouldnt say anymore further about this, as it's just a distraction

DeepSight:
Juxtaposition, probably, but I dont know where you are heading with this, please kindly make yourself clear, thank you.

Start first, with, searching high and low, looking up merisms. Once you've got yourself cleared and clued up on merisms, we then can move on with further unravelling what the heck is the TKGE a sign of, loll.

DeepSight:
The truth is that one is not saying that freewill should equate freedom from consequences. However one is saying that the basket of choices available to be made has already been preset by the creator and under-girded by in-built, pre-programmed proclivities which form an iron-cast set of rules by which man must live and thus give a lie to any alleged freewill.

It is because freewill is free and free to use, is the reason why A&E went ahead to use it. If it wasn't freewill, then why didnt A&E not use it then

DeepSight:
Those programs include the hormones in your body which dictate several unavoidables - hunger and consumption, fatigue and rest, circadian cycle and rest, menstrual cycles and ovulation, libido and sex, and many more. You do not have any freewill in these matters my friend.

A good number of what's on your list, were all dormant, just as death too was dormant, until A&E triggered them on, loll.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

DeepSight:
Lol, smart-alec play understood, but I must tell you sincerely that as an agnostic deist I make no presumptions whatsoever about the nature of the reality in which I live, which, for all I know, could well be a simulation or a dream or a dream within a dream within a dream, or the whimsical imagination of a wood-fairy or a fleeting thought of an elf, a troll or a god.

I have never met anyone I couldn't sit down with to together break bread, eat bread, drink wine and learn something from, so, I am not fazed by you being an agnostic deist. Each to his/her/their own, I'll say, loll.

DeepSight:
Candle in the wind, I know not, I presume not.

loll, look at you playing safe with a smart alec card now. You have been expressing yourself so emphatically up to this point, so why the sudden baulk at committing yourself to saying if you have freewill or you have no freewill, loll.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
Dont you know that, that's exactly what the TKGE advertised?

With every respect sir, every culture on the face of this good Earth has a creation myth which usually includes an attempt to explain the nasty, brutish and short nature of Earth life. The allegory of Eden is not unique in this regard. If you seek to deploy it as firm grounds for explaining the nature of Earth life today, I would suggest that you set out just how it should be understood and the specific reasons why it should either be taken literally or as you interpret it.

Let stall a little bit here. I am sure you have used the figure of speech 'Hi Ladies & Gentlemen, thank you, but please sit down' before or remotely close version to that. Now tell, when you said '... Ladies & Gentlemen ...' what were you implying. What can be deduced from hearing '... Ladies & Gentlemen ...' in that figure of speech?, loll.

I still dont know where you are headed with this. It would be easier, and save our time, if you simply break it down, thank you.

Dont you think its too early to be suspecting me of being anthropocentric?

Not when you have specifically conveyed that the dark, unpleasant, tragic or diseased aspects of Earth Life are a consequence of sin.

If you put your focus on the name of the tree whose fruit, A&E were told not to eat from, then you will see how suffering was introduced right across board on earth, loll.

I am surprised that it misses you that without knowledge of good and evil, there could not be said to have been freewill in the first place. In the same way as an uninformed electorate cannot be said to have or exercise a genuine free choice. This alone, is fatal to your position as it completely snookers the existence of any alleged freewill prior to knowledge of good and evil.

Indeed, as your scripture says that the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened such that they could apprehend their unclothedness after eating the forbidden fruit, this clearly infers that they were dwelling in a state whereby their apprehension of things, of themselves and of ther environment was dumbed down or constricted prior to partaking of the fruit. This forecloses any notion that the said creator had given them anything remotely resembling genuine freewill.

You're allowing your emotion get the better of you, loll.

And you are being escapist here.

Start first, with, searching high and low, looking up merisms. Once you've got yourself cleared and clued up on merisms, we then can move on with further unravelling what the heck is the TKGE a sign of, loll.

Thank you for referring me to merisms. Now tell why you are raising that and what you are trying to infer. Easier to just straightforward explain than being cryptic, that only wastes time.

It is because freewill is free and free to use, is the reason why A&E went ahead to use it. If it wasn't freewill, then why didnt A&E not use it then

Obviously whilst their eyes were closed, no?

A good number of what's on your list, were all dormant, just as death too was dormant, until A&E triggered them on, loll.

And you know this how?

DeepSight:
I'd really like to hear why. Sincerely.
Because the only remotely serious answer I have ever received is freewill - which i believe has problems of its own.

What is your understanding of freewill then?

Ever asked where exactly this idea you refer to as "freewill" comes from?

NNTR:
I have never met anyone I couldn't sit down with to together break bread, eat bread, drink wine and learn something from, so, I am not fazed by you being an agnostic deist. Each to his/her/their own, I'll say, loll.

This is truly refreshing. Thumbs up!

loll, look at you playing safe with a smart alec card now. You have been expressing yourself so emphatically up to this point, so why the sudden baulk at committing yourself to saying if you have freewill or you have no freewill, loll.

Well if you insist the best I can say is that what freewill I have is highly circumscribed and exists within and already selected and limited basket of choices. I am therefore confined to an already determined program and all that I do is strictly within the said pre-defined program. I am unable to see the genuine freedom in this.

Kobojunkie:
What is your understanding of freewill then?

Absolutely unfettered will.

DeepSight:
Absolutely unfettered will.

Of whom? Where is this idea expressed in scripture?

Kobojunkie:
Of whom? Where is this idea expressed in scripture?

I have not alluded to it being expressed in scripture, what I said was that the concept of freewill is what is often deployed in answer to posers such as that contained in my OP, for example it is mostly deployed in response to the problem of evil.

Its a problematic response for me because, among other factors, man's freedom is manifestly highly circumscribed.
If we were to go scriptural though, there is enough in scripture to suggest that man has no freewill whatsoever.

DeepSight:
I have not alluded to it being expressed in scripture, what I said was that the concept of freewill is what is often deployed in answer to posers such as that contained in my OP, for example it is mostly deployed in response to the problem of evil.

Its a problematic response for me because, among other factors, man's freedom is manifestly highly circumscribed.
If we were to go scriptural though, there is enough in scripture to suggest that man has no freewill whatsoever.

Indeed, man has no freewill this since man is a product on God's assembly like. He is described as man's creator and His very breath powering man from beginning to end. So how can man claim to be free of the one who his very existence depends on?

The creators intention is to source for His glory Sons of God and this using man as His starting product. So, His quality control measures are in place to ensure the quality of His final products.

DeepSight:
With every respect sir, every culture on the face of this good Earth has a creation myth which usually includes an attempt to explain the nasty, brutish and short nature of Earth life.

Let the creation myth be judged on their merits, including the bible, loll.

Borrowing particularly, your phraseology, '... the nasty, brutish and short nature of Earth life' sic, is a classic case of, as you lay your bed, lie in it, loll.

DeepSight:
The allegory of Eden is not unique in this regard. If you seek to deploy it as firm grounds for explaining the nature of Earth life today, I would suggest that you set out just how it should be understood and the specific reasons why it should either be taken literally or as you interpret it.

I've from the word go, set out, its you holding up party.

Simplistically, the TKGE and its fruit gives away how we find the nature of Earth the way its panned out to be.

DeepSight:
I still dont know where you are headed with this. It would be easier, and save our time, if you simply break it down, thank you.

Genesis 2:8-9
'8And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, where He placed the man He had formed.
9Out of the ground the LORD God gave growth to every tree that is pleasing to the eye and good for food.
And in the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.'

Listen to this then, as I shed more light.

You see, merisms are whats otherwise called synecdoche, which that coming from a Greek origin means, simultaneous understanding. When you do a salutation or introduction with 'Hi ladies and gentlemen' greeting used, instead of a 'Hi Everyone' greeting, you simply are, with using the two terms ladies and gentlemen', giving out a simultaneous understanding that you are greeting everyone. The ladies and gentlemen' synecdoche, is greeting all manners of ladies and gentlemen', whether short, tall, fat, thin, rich, poor, healthy, sick, gainfully employed, not gainfully employed, clever, dull, etc. It saves time saying ladies and gentlemen' as it encompasses inexhaustible comparisons that might take forever to individually be listed

I asked you to research on merism, but looks like you didnt do that quite enough to be able to join the dots to see how merism, relates to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil aka TGKE, which in reality, on top of being 'the Tree of the knowledge of Everything', is also the Tree of Death, loll.

Watch this, the TKGE is a symbol, its a sign of everything that ever is Good and everything that ever is Evil.

It funnily enough, does literally mean, the knowledge of good and evil and the following, actually will explain away how it means, literal knowledge of good and evil.

In Genesis 2:9 above's original text, good, in that verse and context, is translated from a word, that means and typifies 'Beautiful' while evil, in the same verse and context, is translated from a word, that means and typifies 'Adversity'.

Now when both words are cojoined, in use and with knowledge, good with it being 'Beautiful' means, have knowledge of all extremes and everything in between, that is excellent, dandy and good, while as for evil, as 'Adversity', it means, have knowledge of every manners of whats hardship, bad and ugly, difficult or unpleasant situation that possibly exists.

The good, is English and comes originally from the Hebrew verb word 'tob', that means 'to be pleasing, pleasant or good', while the evil, too is an English word, that equally is translated originally from the Hebrew noun word 'roa', that means 'rottenness, wickedness, badness, ugliness, sadness, naughtiness, evil' etc,

The TKGE in plain sight, advertised itself. It essentially is a pandora box

DeepSight:
Not when you have specifically conveyed that the dark, unpleasant, tragic or diseased aspects of Earth Life are a consequence of sin.

I am surprised that it misses you that without knowledge of good and evil, there could not be said to have been freewill in the first place. In the same way as an uninformed electorate cannot be said to have or exercise a genuine free choice. This alone, is fatal to your position as it completely snookers the existence of any alleged freewill prior to knowledge of good and evil.

Indeed, as your scripture says that the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened such that they could apprehend their unclothedness after eating the forbidden fruit, this clearly infers that they were dwelling in a state whereby their apprehension of things, of themselves and of ther environment was dumbed down or constricted prior to partaking of the fruit. This forecloses any notion that the said creator had given them anything remotely resembling genuine freewill.

I am surprised that it misses you that A&E weren't babies, loll. Please dont insult them, if you want to argue as if they weren't intelligent matured full grown human being whose minds were endowed with accelerated knowledge

Evidences shows that, Adam was subjected to an accelerated learning process or program, which purposefully allowed Adam to think and make reflective judgment(s) concerning what to believe or what not to believe, and so it was that Adam was imparted with enough information by God, to allow him to make informed/educated decisions, like whether or not, to choose to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good or Evil

DeepSight:
And you are being escapist here.

Yeah, the escapist, that turns the door handle and opens the door for a crack of light to escape and just enough with that to see into the dark room with

DeepSight:
Thank you for referring me to merisms. Now tell why you are raising that and what you are trying to infer.

Its part of the bunch of keys necessary to unlock the mystique surrounding the TKGE with and get a proper handle on what the tree really typifies

DeepSight:
Easier to just straightforward explain than being cryptic, that only wastes time.

Child birthing wastes time. Coal, pearl, gold, diamond, petroleum harvesting etc wastes time. The point there, is, pearls don't lie on the seashore. If you want one, you must be prepared and ready to dive for it, loll.

DeepSight:
Obviously whilst their eyes were closed, no?

Seems you have a myopic view of Adam and Eve.
I wonder why you havent considered the thought that Adam, Eve and the serpent didnt once accuse God why He put the the TKGE in the garden

DeepSight:
And you know this how?

Lets cut to the chase and do this the easy way. If A&E didnt prematurely eat the fruit off the TKGE, none of those things you listed would have been activated, loll.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

DeepSight:
This is truly refreshing. Thumbs up!

You sound as if you've never had it this good like this before

DeepSight:
Well if you insist the best I can say is that what freewill I have is highly circumscribed and exists within and already selected and limited basket of choices. I am therefore confined to an already determined program and all that I do is strictly within the said pre-defined program. I am unable to see the genuine freedom in this.

Well if you insist that there is no genuine freedom, then why dont we test it out. Are you on?

With you as the guinea pig, lets test if you have the gift of freewill or you dont have the gift of freewill. Let's test to see if, really, you are confined to an already determined program and all that I do is strictly within the said pre-defined program

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

Dtruthspeaker:
Who diseased the world?

Answer: the creation itself.

Was he under the fear of imminent death (Duress) or "under a gun when" when he was made to BREAK THE ONLY LAW IN THE WORLD?

(This is where Adam (Man) is different from Eve (woman)

Adam was forced by the threat of love and sex and the sweetness of woman into breaking The Law otherwise He would have been Free and the world would not have been diseased, exactly as it was when it came out of the Factory.

And this is the reason why God through the Bible, speaks to men and made A Way for them to Return to their Original Factory Settings and their Former Absence of Diseased State, for those who want it.

But Eve has none.

If you look closely you will see that GOD DID NOT TRY HER ON THAT DAY, {unlike Satan and Adam} same as He Did to Cain's murder of Abel. THEIR CASES WERE NOT TRIED BUT POSTPONED TILL JUDGEMENT DAY.)

I even took out time to draft out Eve's Charges to see her action properly.

Taking out time to draft out the woman's charges was unnecessary

You didnt you read the memo, showing that Jesus asked the woman, the archetype of Eve, the following questions:
'Woman, where are your accusers, Where are they? Is there no one left to condemn you?'

When the Woman then said: 'No one, Lord' Jesus, then said, 'I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more'

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

NNTR:
Let the creation myth be judged on their merits, including the bible, loll.

Borrowing particularly, your phraseology, '... the nasty, brutish and short nature of Earth life' sic, is a classic case of, as you lay your bed, lie in it, loll.

Not my phrase, as you evidently know, and certainly not a bed I was present to lay. I, and some seven billion others were not part of that small but colorful dramatis personae.

I asked you to research on merism, but looks like you didnt do that quite enough to be able to join the dots to see how merism, relates to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil aka TGKE, which in reality, on top of being 'the Tree of the knowledge of Everything', is also the Tree of Death, loll.

This still sets out my case for me: it discloses ignorance pre-consumption and knowledge post-consumption. And there can be no honest freedom of choices in such circumstances. Come to think of it, what conception could the man possibly have had of death? None whatsoever.

The TKGE in plain sight, advertised itself. It essentially is a pandora box

In which event nothing but mischief can be deduced on the part of the creator. This is aside from the inherent contradiction in a claim to the existence of freewill beside a dire warning to desist from opening the box which contains "everything."

This is a direct contradiction of freedom and a direct affirmation of control.

I am surprised that it misses you that A&E weren't babies, loll. Please dont insult them, if you want to argue as if they weren't intelligent matured full grown human being whose minds were endowed with accelerated knowledge

This is evasive and escapist. I trust you inwardly do recognize the inescapable point as to how an absence of knowledge of good and evil inevitably denies any true freedom of choice. In this, it is way too lame to rest your oars on a simple warning not to touch the Pandora box. For in that very Pandora box rests the true information required for free choice.

Evidences shows that, Adam was subjected to an accelerated learning process or program, which purposefully allowed Adam to think and make reflective judgment(s) concerning what to believe or what not to believe, and so it was that Adam was imparted with enough information by God, to allow him to make informed/educated decisions, like whether or not, to choose to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good or Evil

"Evidences? ? ?" It appears you are losing sight of the fact that I am only indulging you in following your explanation of a myth which involves a talking serpent.

Yeah, the escapist, that turns the door handle and opens the door for a crack of light to escape and just enough with that to see into the dark room with

These fancy words do nothing to change your escapsim here.

Its part of the bunch of keys necessary to unlock the mystique surrounding the TKGE with and get a proper handle on what the tree really typifies

Frankly, I have heard much more profound takes on the Eden allegory than that which you have offered here.

Child birthing wastes time. Coal, pearl, gold, diamond, petroleum harvesting etc wastes time. The point there, is, pearls don't lie on the seashore. If you want one, you must be prepared and ready to dive for it, loll.

Beware, I am not lazy in these matters - all the same do not mistake me for one ready to be fed fat on the presuppositions of a myth or folk allegory.

Seems you have a myopic view of Adam and Eve.

I would rather think that you are the one with a myopic view of them if you suppose them to be individual historical human beings - as opposed to the primordial spirit of man in its pre-existent state untainted by the knowledge of matter. He made them clothes of animal skin. I wonder what you make of that. Dig deep.

I wonder why you havent considered the thought that Adam, Eve and the serpent didnt once accuse God why He put the the TKGE in the garden

Why would the writer sabotage his own tale, my friend.

Lets cut to the chase and do this the easy way. If A&E didnt prematurely eat the fruit off the TKGE, none of those things you listed would have been activated, loll.

Its still not clear to me how you know this for a fact and its somewhat disturbing that you take the allegory as a historical document.

DeepSight:
For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

Questioning unquestionable God?

Hope you know the meaning of unquestionable sha?

NNTR:
You sound as if you've never had it this good like this before

Oh, I have, believe me, there used to be a golden age on this board, years and years ago. Take a peek into the past on this board and you will be surprised. Its just that there are so many closed minded people who will not even entertain a discussion of anything outside their worldview - and for this I appreciate your sort.

Well if you insist that there is no genuine freedom, then why dont we test it out. Are you on?

With you as the guinea pig, lets test if you have the gift of freewill or you dont have the gift of freewill. Let's test to see if, really, you are confined to an already determined program and all that I do is strictly within the said pre-defined program

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

I fail to see what possible test may disprove the existence of a set basket of choices by which our alleged freedom is circumscribed. Or do you want to hand me the choice not to have been born? Or the choice to have been born female rather than male. Or the choice to lack a libido. Or the choice to physically exist without consumption of living things. Or the choice to avoid disease and death. You cant my brother. There are a great many immutable and adamantine factors which circumscribe all our possible choices.

Fiscus105:


Questioning unquestionable God?

Hope you know the meaning of unquestionable sha?

Questioning the description of God offered by most religious thought.
God ITSELF is, and always will be, utterly ineffable.

Fiscus105:
Questioning unquestionable God?

Hope you know the meaning of unquestionable sha?

Who lied to you that God does not welcome your questioning of Him?

Job questioned God, and God answered Job, did He not? So who lied to you?

Kobojunkie:
Who lied to you that God does not welcome your questioning of Him?

Job questioned God, and God answered Job, did He not? So who lied to you?

Again, hope u know the meaning of unquestionable?

Fiscus105:
Again, hope u know the meaning of unquestionable?

Do tell me, what what "unquestionable" mean?

DeepSight:
For it has always seemed somewhat odd to me, that one may create something, and then proceed to sit in magisterial judgement over it - in terms of condemning it to destruction or granting it life. In terms of saying that it is good or evil - Because - any such judgement is necessarily a judgment of the Creator itself and no one else, surely?

Who else is responsible for the nature of a created thing if not the creator of the thing?

If you create a thing and give it a soul making it capable of making decisions then it can be judged. Judgment is conditional on sentience and decision making. As you lay your bed so you will lie on it. If you do anyhow you go see anyhow. Eni ba se'oun t'enikan o se ri, oju e a ri oun t'enikan o ri ri...all of these sayings are based on the fact that for every cause there is am effect and for every effect there is reward or consequence. It's that simple.

efficiencie:


If you create a thing and give it a soul making it capable of making decisions then it can be judged. Judgment is conditional on sentience and decision making. As you lay your bed so you will lie on it. If you do anyhow you go see anyhow. Eni ba se'oun t'enikan o se ri, oju e a ri oun t'enikan o ri ri...all of these sayings are based on the fact that for every cause there is am effect and for every effect there is reward or consequence. It's that simple.

But don't you see that even with this example, you have to ask after the source of your soul. And to the extent that that source is the creator, then its nature ultimately arises from the nature of the creator - this is ineluctable.

And if we are to draw from scripture, it even says that the creator made man in his own image.
That surely caps it.
What is there left to judge?

DeepSight:


But don't you see that even with this example, you have to ask after the source of your soul. And to the extent that that source is the creator, then its nature ultimately arises from the nature of the creator - this is ineluctable.

And if we are to draw from scripture, it even says that the creator made man in his own image.
That surely caps it.
What is there left to judge?

Dude drop this grammar and stick with coherence. "God created man in his image" is a statement you should understand before quoting. If God is God then He is a singularity without origin and without end. Out of Him originates all things not created by man or beast. If this axiom is accepted then we need to understand what it means to be created in the image of God. God is has a form which as observed by Ezekiel appears like that of a man. Hence the current form or physiognomy of a man is borrowed from God (Ezekiel 1:26). God feels emotions. He can get angry (Exodus 32:11). He can be pleased (Hebrews 11:6). He has a compassion (Genesis 21:17) etc. God had dominion over the Heavens and granted man dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). Most importantly, particularly for argument, is that God has the capacity to choose, and also man can choose.

These features make man have the similitude of God but there is one feature God had that man did not have and it is the "knowledge of good and evil" (Genesis 3:22). Their knowledge was meant to be sourced from the inspiration of the HolyGhost which was abundant in them and not from the tree of knowledge of good and evil which would have granted them the power to know what was right from what was wrong independently of the HolyGhost. After disobeying man died (not physically) as the Spirit of God left them as the sole inspiration of their decisions. This was explained by Paul. When you are a baby you are very much like Adam before he fell but the moment you attain self awareness the nature of Adam, knowing good and evil, revives and we die (Romans 7:9). Herein lies the essence of my earlier post, God made man, made him perfect and gave him the ability to choose. The ability to choose is the hallmark of all sentient beings. The ability to choose generates consequences and consequences can be right or wrong. The rightness or wrongness of a decision can only be judged by the one person who cannot be judged, God.

The only time your argument holds true is if God created us to be automatons. Pre programmed robots, not self aware, not sentient and without the ability to choose independently. It is in the case that God loses the right to judge anyone because there is no basis for independent decision making and hence no basis for a consequence. If there is no consequence stemming from independent decision making then there is no basis for judgment...but God did not create soulless automatons. He created beings like Himself that can choose and if you can choose then you must be judged by the judge that cannot be judged.

DeepSight:


God ITSELF is, and always will be, utterly ineffable.

Ineffable is a fancy word for nonsense. It’s ineffable because it is nonsense. It is ineffable because after rubbishing the extrapolation of a human being, with all its accompanying superlatives, that is god, you’re left with abstract nonsense.

Language works by creating mental pictures which are based on objects in reality or an abstraction of such objects.

I can tell you about an upside down tree that has rainbow colored leaves and golden sap. Even though no such thing exists in reality as we know it(it’s possible such a thing exists somewhere in the universe) you and another person can still create similar mental pictures of it.

God, soul, spirits, and other metaphysical jargon do not create mental pictures like that because they are nonsense. It’s either god is described as a powerful human or defined so abstractly that no mental image comes up.
Your interlocutor above states that “ If God is God then He is a singularity without origin and without end.” Apart from the opening tautology, the rest of the statement is meaningless assertions from a mind infested with the god idea and ignorant of science. If I’m being magnanimous, he is doing nothing but describing the universe.

These people can never define the soul, can’t prove its function, and can’t tell you where its located but they are so sure of it. Same thing with their gods, spirits, and whatever fantastical creatures they’ve been taught to believe exists.

God is not ineffable. God is nonsense.

If there is a thing or things with the ability to do the actions attributed to Mr. God, that thing or those things are ineffable.

efficiencie:

If this axiom is accepted then we need to understand what it means to be created in the image of God. God is has a form which as observed by Ezekiel appears like that of a man. Hence the current form or physiognomy of a man is borrowed from God (Ezekiel 1:26). God feels emotions. He can get angry (Exodus 32:11). He can be pleased (Hebrews 11:6). He has a compassion (Genesis 21:17) etc.

I told a Christian that if man is made in the image of god, then god is a supernatural ape. Of course he vehemently disagreed.
However, he didn’t explain why humans have similarities to other Apes (of course he can’t explain anything) So I maintain that this god is Super Chimp. He gets angry and throws shit everywhere like an ape.