₦airaland Forum

Proves how sinful sex is

InesQor: @Kay 17:

It might depend on the circumstance. Most choices have at least 2 options but then there are such things as a Hobson's choice where there's only one option (also known as Take it or Leave it). Hobson's choice can apply in theological impossibilities, where the impossibility looks from man's perspective.

E.g. A man (who is time limited) deciding to foreknow God's mind, where God is not time limited. Rather, God who exists outside time can say "this is what will happen" and you can take it or leave it. Which is why I always say, you need not accept what a theist believes. Take it or leave it.

And likewise necessities.

In the Hobson example you made, it is like only one choice is available. Take it! Cos God's foreknowledge already frozen man out all other options including "leave it"

Reyginus: Vec is more matured, lyric wise. Ice got more swag. Vec took the game a bit higher. He is better.

Swag?! In rap?! R you a woman?

Most of TV01's post is unrelated to the OP, all that's relevant is how you explain away slavery as a cultural mess and leave homosexuality.

@anony2 and inesqor

Sorry being a bit busy.

@anony2

My position on freewill is clear. I understand it to be an endless infinite range of choices for the decisionmaker, therefrom he can choose. Among such choices are impossibilities, such being a cause upon on's self. And creating something out of nothing. Fetching evil out of good. In my view, since freewill posits the possibility of impossibilites, it is absurd as a result.

When I saw your argument on the compatibility of free will and God's omniscience; I believed that my scenario renders your argument incoherent.

Man has 2 options ---- walk thru path A

OR ---- walk thru path B

God sees him taking path A and tells him.

Man probably anti-theist, wants to prove God's knowledge false

Takes ----- Path B

From the above, the man uses his free will to act contrary to God's omniscience. Hence a paradox in your hands. Either you throw out free will or omniscience from your argument.

@inesqor

Your argument and definition is very much different from mine. I also love your movie example. But I have just one question: is man afforded at least two free options in every circumstance?

All my arguments for the absurdity of freewill:

Free will ought to solve the Evil problem, bUT can one freely will to be a cause upto itself or do the impossible? If No, it follows that a Good/perfect being that freely wills imperfection/evil is contradictory. Either its good and wills good OR its evil and wills evil.

1. Freewill doesn't just mean ability to pick either good or evil, but also the availability of an infinite number of options. The flaw in free will is: Man can't will the impossible.

2. A good free willed being does wills imperfection definitely doesn't demonstrate perfection, its either its flawed or a contradiction.

3. Free will is in essence an absurdity.

My argument on the paradox of omnipotence/freewill

IF a man is faced with two paths A and B, by predestination or by God's foreknowledge the man takes A. Now what if he got to know of God's foreknowledge of the path A he was to take and deliberately decides to
take B, rendering God's omniscience nugatory??

I was in essence attacking your the coherence of your omniscience/freewill argument

^^ anony, you claimed man always has to take his decisions freely and isn't predestined.

2. You claimed that God has foreknowledge of such decisions, right?

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]2. Here you hold that the future is fixed. If God knows it, it is fixed. If man knows it, it is still fixed. Even if the whole world knows it, IT IS STILL FIXED. If man acts contrary to it, then IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FIXED. The future cannot be fixed and yet not fixed at the same time. Therein lies your second contradiction.[/quote]Exactly my point in proving that God's omniscience will actually render nugatory any form of choice or free will!

@OP

LOOOL!!

And you'd be complaining people are attacking Christianity, yet you look for trouble. I think you are seeking for some external validation for Christianity.

As to moral depravity, Christians and Christian State and super states (churches) are morally corrupt. There is a a lack of Conscience and Compassion in nigeria and the number of churches and crusades/deliverances haven't made things better.

Your relentless hagging over God and persecution against nonbelievers trigger a hatred against the concept of God and his followers

If life isn't about happiness, when what's it for?? If service to God doesn't award ppl with happiness, would you still serve God?? Or can you serve God in sadness??

Faith.

My argument against freewill by a Good being.

1. Freewill doesn't just mean ability to pick either good or evil, but also the availability of an infinite number of options. The flaw in free will is: Man can't will the impossible.

2. A good free willed being does wills imperfection definitely doesn't demonstrate perfection, its either its flawed or a contradiction.

3. Free will is in essence an absurdity.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Interesting, what you've done here is try to draw a distinction between the knowledge of a thing and the thing itself. That's like saying "You know that your username is Kay 17 but it is not Kay 17" How can you know a thing without knowing it? You contradict yourself my friend.

Let me see if I can show you by answering point by point

Here you come to the conclusion that the future is constant (I don't share this view but it is a view you hold nonetheless)


Here you switch from a fixed future to one with multiple outcomes. If it is fixed, then man will not be able to act contrary to it even if he knows what the outcome will be. If he can act contrary to it, then it cannot be said to be fixed.
The future is either fixed or it is not fixed. You can't have it both ways just because you don't want God to be omniscient.

I think at this point, you are no longer trying to make a coherent argument rather you are merely trying to churn out comments irrespective of how bad they are hoping that will somehow help you to escape the logical conclusion of God's omniscience . . . or is it it free-will you want to escape from? I can't quite tell which it is.[/quote]Your Quote Anony2

I'll like you to consider this carefully. From your analogy, notice that the fact you know that your son will disobey you doesn't in anyway change the fact that he CHOSE to disobey you. The real question I perceive that you are grappling with is not that God's omniscience affects free-will rather what you are really unhappy about is that since God knew before hand, why didn't He stop it before it came to be. Notice that those are two different things entirely.

From the above, you made it clear that man freely chooses his actions, and in my scenario: the man freely chooses btw either paths. And God knows before any action or choice is made, what action/choice the man will take. From your reply to me, you contradict yourself!

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Interesting.

First of all, you haven't replied to me about why you think free-will is absurd.

Secondly, there are a few underlying assumptions I notice here which are contradictory:

1: You assume that God is subject to linear time. (I don't hold this view).

2: On the one hand you assume that the future is fixed such that God knows a fixed future and then on the other hand you equally assume that the future is not fixed such that man can choose to change it. You have created an argument which on the surface seems ok but at the root contradicts itself.[/quote]1. No, I don't believe I implicitly made such an assumption, I never regarded time linear to God. However knowledge is constant, if God has foreknowledge as most christians claim, then it means the future event as knowledge of it is fixed and constant.

2. I'm saying its fixed and as a result paradoxical to God's omnscience if man being aware of God's foreknowledge deliberately acts contrary to God's knowledge.

Deep Sight: Why dont you forget Yahweh and Allah and think for once about the source of existence, whatever you may call it? I certainly abandoned Yahweh and Allah almost 20 years ago. . . and yet I believe in the existence of the compound eternal mind that is God. . . . .

You know, my family and friends always said - when you are in real trouble, you will call on Jesus. I had a heart attack at 21, I did not call on Jesus. I called on God. I survived. I have been in an amazing number of terrible auto accidents. I did not call on Jesus. I called on God. I survived. Including one accident in which the vehicle almost fell of a bridge in Abuja, just hanging barely. Another accident in which my car flew from one side of Osborne road in Ikoyi to the reverse side. Another one in which, pursued by armed robbers at Yaba, I did James Bond and ended up with a 180 degree spin that crashed me. I have been attacked by robbers who kidnapped me in lekki and killed 4 people in my presence and were set to execute me. I have been attacked in VI by robbers again, and reversed at unimaginable speed through a busy street and killed no one. I have been through experiences such as losing my job and marriage within the space of one month and not gone mad. Never called on Jesus. I have practiced as a lawyer on okada back in the day carrying my wig and gown with a ton of books sweating in a cheap suit and risen to become a director in several multi-nationals as cross regional head of legal. Never called on Jesus. I Have lost all of that, and more than I can tell and in the process somehow built from Okada to Two houses, great cars, personal businesses, et all, in spite of the struggle. From a 3 bedroom flat of struggle to a 7 bedroom GRA house for my mother and a victoria island one for myself.. Never called on Jesus. Even at the point of loss of most of my assets recently, never called on Jesus. Called on God. Called on my spirit.

Think on that. Call on yours.

It aint easy, but its life.

I am sorry i shared this much online, but its life. . . and i just had a feeling. Deal with life.

I don't think Existence has a source or a cause, to deem otherwise so implies some subject of fantasy outside existence is responsible for existence.

Admirable story. Your hands are full

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Good so I'll take it that you do believe that freewill exists since your reply to this thread was not an illusion but something you chose to do and consequently did.

Now think about it carefully this carefully: Does the fact that I knew that you will choose to reply my comment mean that you didn't actually freely choose to reply?

My point being that if I my ability to predict your next action does not in anyway contradict your freedom of choice then the fact that God knows whether you will choose Him or not does not take anything away from your ability to choose Him.

For more on the omniscience paradox, see this video below (You can start from 1:40)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JRsHIN5ATY[/quote]IF a man is faced with two paths A and B, by predestination or by God's foreknowledge the man takes A. Now what if he got to know of God's foreknowledge of the path A he was to take and deliberately decides to take B, rendering God's omniscience nugatory??

^^^

You can discuss Love if you wish, however it seems Wilberforce turned a blind eye to the numerous EXPRESS biblical verses that support and promote slavery. And they are quite self-evidential.

I can't see how you"d maintain love and then keep slaves. Because slavery is a destruction of personhood.

davidylan: 1. yes it does... at the end of the day you can put all those options into two groups - good or bad depending on your moral compass.

2. You flatter yourself. There are paradoxes and there are sentences that are just a bunch of words strung together with no message passed across. Yours fall in the latter category.

3. Why is freewill absurd? In one sentence you say freewill is bad and then ferret in the bible to blame God for taking away your freewill? Are you serious?

1. Ok explain necessary evils then. Wherein Jehovah Witnesses take in blood infusions to save their lives or give to others to save their lives

2. You didn't understand my post

3. Neither did you understand that too.

davidylan: this simply makes no sense. Seriously...

Its like saying if only light exists then its deviation is nothing rather than darkness.

One other problem is that you do not seem to understand the word "deviation". It does not mean COMPLETE REMOVAL (or a subtraction as you say), it means an aberration or deflection from an existing course.

Note that, there was Nothingness before Creation. God created ONLY Good. Evil was not created and therefore has no existence. Or else you want to say some things like Evil are causeless and uncreated.

davidylan: 1. The "infinite number of options" you talk about can be boiled down to two things - good and evil. So your point there makes no sense. Secondly, science cannot predict the impossible either, does that make science invalid as you try to make of free will?

2. This point was unintelligible. Appears you dont know what you're talking about.

3. Absurd. First you whine that God hasnt given you freewill then turn around to claim that freewill is an absurdity that you would rather do away with?

1. No it doesn't boil from an infinite number of options to 2. I didn't mention anything about science wither.

2. It is a paradox apparently.

3. Where did I say that??! Is freewill absurd or not ?

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]I think your problem is that you describe evil as an existing thing that is created rather than a corruption of a created thing. Basically you are arguing a strawman because I do not in anyway suggest that evil was created but rather evil is a deviation from how a thing is supposed to be.
Also, neither do I see why free-will must necessarily be created ex-nihilo and not ex-deo. Remember God Himself has free-will. You will need to provide a strong argument for why free-will MUST have to be created ex-nihilo.[/quote]The problem with your deviation argument is that: if only Good exists, then its deviation is Nothing. Either Good or Nothingness. Substract the Good/God and you have a void.

@anony2

I can easily argue that the "good" cup is the product of an imperfect maker, which simply catches an illusory glimpse of perfection momentarily.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]I wouldn't quite say that good and evil are opposites in the sense that they are not like two opposite clashing forces but more like the presence of one is the absence of the other.

How does a good world become evil? The same way a good cup becomes damaged.
How does a good cup become damaged? Improper use.
Who can use a thing improperly? Conscious beings with the ability to choose

None of this makes the creator of the world evil. In the same way Leonardo DaVinci doesn't become a bad painter because someone damaged the Mona Lisa by smearing it with animal dung.

Also the fact that I can accept a good painting like the Mona Lisa becoming an evil painting of animal dung does not lead us to the logical conclusion that therefore Leonardo DaVinci can lose his painting skills in a similar way. You made a very huge logical leap there my friend.[/quote]Anony2, you make bad analogies. Picking up examples from the imperfect world. Taken that God probably created existence of all ex deo or ex nihilo, he brings to the world total perfection borrowed from his self OR his power respectively.

The Creation as a result of this loan is good/perfect. Imperfection is presently nonexistent. The only way, imperfection/evil can originate is if God creates it ex nihilo (not deo) or delegates his power to humans in form of free will. Note that ex nihilo is logically impossible, hence freewill is logically impossible for trying to command/do the impossible.

davidylan: this is quite confusing to be honest. It appears to me that your thinking here does not follow any logical train.

1. How does freewill solve the evil problem? By nature, freewill means the CHOICE to choose between good and evil. Are you saying that if man had the freewill to do anything he will by nature ALWAYS choose to do good?

2. lol if God can "freely will" man to do his bidding then how is that still freewill? I mean do you see the oxymoron here?

3. lol again your last line is nonsense... freewill means giving man the choice to choose between good and evil. If God simply willed every man to do good then man no longer has free will which of course is anathema to you.

1. Freewill doesn't just mean ability to pick either good or evil, but also the availability of an infinite number of options. The flaw in free will is: Man can't will the impossible.

2. A good free willed being does wills imperfection definitely doesn't demonstrate perfection, its either its flawed or a contradiction.

3. Free will is in essence an absurdity.

@TV01

I painstakingly complied the verses in the Bible that supported and promoted slavery. I'm yet to receive your response on such verses and from what angle should they be looked from.

davidylan: what you're struggling with is that since God created a "good" world, it must needs remain good for life... doesnt that eliminate freewill and make God a tyrant in this case?

Free will ought to solve the Evil problem, bUT can one freely will to be a cause upto itself or do the impossible? If No, it follows that a Good/perfect being that freely wills imperfection/evil is contradictory. Either its good and wills good OR its evil and wills evil.

Ihedinobi: Please excuse my barging in, but I'd like to point out that "God made a good world" is not quite the same as "the world is good by nature". "God made a good world" means that God created a world equipped and purposed to be good. God is the only thing which is good by nature.

That didn't fit. It wouldn't be a good world if it isn't good as a nature/characteristic.

^^^

I think we don't have sufficient understanding on sexuality, what we have is based on gender roles from multiple cultures, hence a confusion.

It is settled at law, that a sexual identity is inherent to a person and consequentially a human right.

However bible scholars/followers are called upon here to deal with interpretation and its rules.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Good we agree. But then we must also agree that God created a good world and evil could only have come into it by deviating from a good God in the same way darkness follows when one turns away from the light.[/quote]I will also agree good and evil are opposites! However, Anony2 how does a Good World, which is Good by Nature become Evil?! If you can accept that, then you can accept Good God going Evil.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]There is equally no evil in good[/quote]Which I agree with you. consequently, since we experience Evil, and there can't be evil in good; therefore God who is good couldn't have created this Evil world!

Anony2, there is no darkness in Light.

@anony2

1. Do you accept there is Evil? If so, why is Evil necessary with a good God?

truthislight: Your words!

Which cultural context?
The Jews were expressly commanded to be different from the nations all around them hence the laws.

Their laws were not influence by their history since they hard none, but rather a spontaneous start as a nation and with the laws.

So, which culture?

1. Their fore fathers Abraham father and co were idol Worshpers.

2. The nation of Egypt they came out from were Idol Worshpers.

3. All the nations around them were idol Worshpers.

Why then were the Jews not idol Worshpers?

Should their cultures not have reflected that ^?

The nations all around them hard female and male(homosexual) prostitute in their temples (as they engage in their demonic worship),

should it not follow that they should have imitated such cultures since you said "they were influence by the cultures" of the time?

But no, they did not, Yahweh charted their course and their ways of life and their worship were not influence by human tradition.

You are simply exposing your limited knowledge/information here concerning the Jews.

The Jews were not "influnce by any culture" of any sort, but rather, from the get go, Yahweh charted a couse for them, he provided them with all their laws (about 700 of them), they were different from every other nations.

Why not chose another culture/nation/religion to propagate your homosexuality and leave the bible out of it?

Nope, homosexuality was a taboo for all Middle Eastern cultures, even the Phoenicians frowned at it. Hammrubi Code sets a penalty for it.

The israelites did have a warring culture, wherein idol worshippers have been present ever since Egypt and been fought against and vice versa.

Couldn't it be said, that homosexuality is frowned in both Middle Eastern cultures and in cultures of the Asia Minor? Given that each context, Judaism and Christianity both accomodate some intolerance towards certain acts apart from homosexuality in their doctrines.

Could it be said that the bible can never escape the cultural contexts of the times it was written in?