₦airaland Forum

frosbel: Eternal torment - Cruel 'GOD'
Trinity - Pagan god ( x3 )
Tithes System - ( Fraudulent exploitation of God's people ).

The above is a good example of what it means to use strawmen

Try this instead:
Doctrine of Hell - God of Justice
Doctrine of Trinity - One God, three persons
Doctrine of Tithes - The principle of giving

If you really want to argue against a position, make sure you understand it first.

frosbel: You must be living in Lala Land then

Is that the bible verse I asked for?

Boomark: Our Father, the who is in heaven...that is the model Jesus also used. Prove me wrong please with the scriptures and not what they taught you in church.

I almost fell in love with you in the GRACE doctrine thread as you were dishing out lots of bible verses.

But for trinity, there is scarcity of bible verses to support your trinity

I am yet to see a single bible verse that proves that God is not Trinity

Avicenna: Ok, thanks
If I may ask, does this cover any painful, debilitating disease or condition with no cure in the foreeseeable future?

Or just for the specific vegetative patients?

I don't know exactly what it can and cannot cover but I think you get to choose the specific conditions it covers So for instance you can have one covering brain damage but not spinal injury and no I don't think it is restricted to vegetative states.

mazaje: There is no sin in heaven, yet we are told that satan waged a war in heaven with many angels?. . .

But the devil is not like God in the same way that the saints will be like God. In the case of man, he has been redeemed from his fallen state and the righteousness of God has been imputed to him. He now has God's nature of holiness.
For the angels it is not so. They were created holy and will obediently serve God. If they rebelled by leaving their position, they will be cast into the lake of fire.

You can read here for more on angels and their freewill:

http://www.learnthebible.org/the-free-will-of-angels.html

mazaje: From 1 John, it says. . ."If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

Are you saying that you do not sin sometimes?. . .John in the bible say your decieve yourself if you claim that. . .

Well said but moot. I've already shown sin is possible in the flesh

Doesn't the bible put the angels are the purest of all god's creation?. . .It says human will be like angles in heaven. . .

biblical proof please

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

This response was given in the context of marriage.

Hebrews 12:22-23 But you are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, who are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.

If angles that are higly placed can sin and wage war in heaven a place that is said to contain no sin, why not humans?. . .

Nothing about this passage tells us anything about the ability or inability of anyone to sin

mazaje: Everything you talked about from the scriptures is to happen here on earth(with regards to sin), even the verse says that flesh that causes people to be tempted into sin will be discarded and replaced with a pure spiritual one here on earth not in heaven. . .The verse does not say that people will not sin in heaven. . .You are just arguing from silence. . .

Lol, since you want a bible verse:

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
Rev 22:15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.

The bible has now said to your hearing that sinners are outside heaven. It is now up to you to show from scripture why you think there will be sin in heaven

thehomer: You seem to have forgotten when you were talking about striving against the flesh. And the point about whether or not you sin is something that you can answer yourself with a yes or no. It wasn't an ad hominem.

He did not ask me a question.

No the devil wasn't born again but neither are the angels, Jesus, God or the holy spirit. And based on that response about Jeffrey Dahmer, since he'll be having free will in heaven, what would stop him from acting like the devil? Note that being born-again is to get you into heaven. It doesn't mean you'll remain there. And that he has his free-will.

No the devil wasn't born again and neither are the angels but for God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) it doesn't apply since being born again entails being led by God. and the thing that stops us from following God is the flesh because our desires are for God. and the flesh will be discarded so that nothing will oppose our Godly nature anymore. So basically what you are trying to argue by using the case of Jeff Dahmer is that it is possible in Heaven for God's holy nature to act against His holiness. That is why I asked you whether you know what it means to be born again.

You didn't say whether or not a bathing in water without soap was required, accepting that Jesus died for your sins you didn't even talk about salvation and reward.

What has bathing with soap or without soap got to do with anything. What precisely do you want to know about salvation and reward that you don't think I have covered?

Obviously you're lazy and ignorant because you haven't even met your own standards of explanation for what it means to be born-again.
Your so-called explanation and more were given in the article I posted but you suddenly started wailing and throwing up roadblocks.

Really? please quote bits of the article that explained what I explained better. If you can't point to anything specific you want me to explain, then you are only blowing hot air

Keep laughing. But they're still here see them below.



If you think the goalposts you've moved are too wide for you that's all well and good so we can now get back to where we were before you derailed my point.

yawn.

Here's a simple question for you. Is it logically possible for Jeffrey Dahmer to go against God's will in heaven while he has free will? Be careful with your answer because it has profound implications.

It is logically impossible because when one gets born again, he acquires God's nature; note this doesn't mean that he becomes a robot controlled by God rather he gains the character of God, he likes what God likes, hates the things God hates and does the kind of things God does. He still makes his own choices but his preferences have changed. The reason why a christian sins sometimes is because he/she is still hampered by the flesh and the trappings of a physical world (Romans 6-8 ). However at the rapture, he discards the flesh and with it every source of temptation (1Cor 15). In heaven, He will now be free to act according to his God nature without the temptations of the flesh. To say that the renewed man will sin in heaven is to say that God's nature will act against God's nature and that's a logical impossibility

mazaje: Firstly, the passage in Romans have nothing to do with what you were talking about. The verses in Romans are talking about people who accept Jesus and allow his spirit to dwell in them here on earth, it says his spirit will take over their lives and lead them acordingly here on earth and NOT in heaven. . .It has nothing to do with his second coming or his kingdom. . .Nothing at all. . .The verse in corithtians is also NOTY talking about the ability of not sinning, it only says that human nature will change from the perishable nature to imperishable nature. . .Mortal nature will be changed to immortality. . .No where does it say that humans will not sin in heaven or have the ability not to sin in heaven. . .Both passages in Romans and in corinthtians have nothing to do with what you are saying. . .

Lol, you are just being purposefully irrational.

I have shown you that we sin on earth because of the temptations of the flesh preventing us from living according to the Spirit of God in us.
I have also shown you that the flesh that causes us to be tempted into sin will be discarded and replaced with a pure spiritual one.
If in heaven the thing that causes us to sin is no longer there, from where will the sin come?

Do you want to argue the position that God's Spirit only leads people on earth but then abandons them or leads them against Himself in Heaven? You'll have to show from scripture where you are drawing such conclusions from if that's your argument.

thehomer: So will you show me where I made this concession?

You made it when you argued "if the universe turned out any other way". Well, it doesn't matter now as you have said "you don't know?"

I agree with the fact that chaos is an integral part of the universe if you do not agree with that fact after reading that article, then simply say so rather than rambling on about definitions. The article is more informative than a definition. And that is the point I was making.

Lolol, you have not said whether you agree or not, well, no matter instead of beating about the bush, let me address your question of chaos:
The problem is that you have not used chaos in the sense that I was using it i.e. I argued that the universe follows a set of specific physical laws such that we can accurately predict what should happen next given the initial conditions. Chaos in the sense I meant would be a situation where the universe will not function according to any laws such that we can predict what will happen next.
The article you linked didn't provide such a situation. In fact it agrees that if we knew the precise initial conditions that lead to an action, we would be able to predict that action accurately however where we can't precisely measure the initial conditions leading to the action, we would miss it by a very wide mark. Your double pendulum example for instance follows the physical laws of the universe to the letter and hence is not chaotic in that sense. If we could freeze each moment and measure precisely the exact energy and force at that moment, we would accurately predict exactly where the pendulum will swing next. The only reason it looks random is because we cannot adequately measure it's movement.
You have failed to present any example of chaos that violates physical laws of the universe

I don't have to know in order to make that argument. It does not presuppose that about the universe, it demonstrates the fact that your so-called answer tries to explain everything.

You're basically making the same mistake you made when you were confusing logical possibilities with physical possibilities. I don't know that it is physically possible for the universe to be any other way but it is logically possible. Try not to keep confusing these two issues.

Lololol, To say that a thing exists necessarily is to say that there is no logical possibility that such a thing would be other than it is i.e. if such a thing were any different, it would be logically incoherent.
It is either you know or you don't know. You can't make this argument you are trying to make by claiming ignorance.

This makes no sense. Even if your God created the universe, it doesn't mean he also created the moon otherwise, one can also say he created a gun.

Lol, let's see: so God creates a universe and sets certain physical laws in place such that space time and matter can form and behave in a certain specific way. The moon is one of such matter and behaves according to the physical laws set by God. The creation of a gun involved another mind entirely called man. So if you know of another mind other than God that specifically created the moon, feel free to bring such a mind forward.



By the way, don't forget to respond to this post

Avicenna: Oh...............I see.
but that's for vegetative state. Euthanasia is for living patient but in severe pain with no hope of a cure anytime soon.
Is there an advanced decision document for that?

That's exactly what I'm saying. The law assumes that when you are in severe pain you are not in a mentally capable state to give consent over your death that's where an advanced decision document comes in to play

A second one is a lasting power of attorney document. . .this puts you under the care of someone else and that person now has the power to make that decision on your behalf. However he can only make such a decision after being advised by the doctors concerning what is in your best interest.

The lasting power of attorney must also have been in place before your condition commenced.

Avicenna: dude, I didnt say I should have the right to kill him.
The issue is his right to request for assisted suicide.

As for the vegetative state, he's good as dead already but not legally dead.
It is different. A DO-NOT-RESUSCITATE form or that pull the plug scenario is not the same as a request for Euthanasia.

Sorry perhaps i didn't make myself clear enough. The reason I talked about that law is that if the scenario you prescribed happened, he won't be granted his request because here in the UK he would be deemed mentally incapable of making such a decision because he is under the influence of pain. In fact that is one of the reasons of having an advanced decision document because that way you can't say he is simply delirious. He should have made his choice known before hand free of any duress. . . . .But then again the UK has the NHS so running out of funds is not an issue because the government covers the healthcare.

mazaje: The part in bold is completely false because NO WHERE in the verse says that a new body will be given to any body at Jesus's coming. . .The passage was just talking about how people here ON EARTH will be transformed when they accept Jesus and allow his spirit to dwell in them. . .Why are you making things up?. . .Pls show me from the verses in Romans where it says that these things will ONLY happen at Jesus coming. . .Pls show it. . .The verses are talking about people who accept Jesus and allow his spirit to dwell in them here on earth. . .If the people who accept Jesus here on earth and allow his spirit dwell in them still sin and violate god's laws then why won't they do same in heaven?. . .

The point I was making from those verse was simply that our flesh is in contention with the new spirit which is in us. Paul even exclaimed in 7:24 "who will deliver me from this body of death". I went further to argue that our sinful flesh shall be discarded at the coming of our Lord and we shall put on a Heavenly body.
How do I know that we will have new bodies at the resurrection? You can study 1Corinthians 15 especially from verse 42 downwards.

Here is an excerpt:

I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. - 1Corinthians 15:50-53

Have I satisfied your query now?

Kay 17: I totally agree the universe is orderly. I see a glass falling and shattered to pieces as orderly, cos it dutifully obeys the applicable physical laws. If the glass doesn't shatter, then it is disorderly without everything being equal.

Also note: that none of us has a bird eye view of the Universe, we merely use our minds, which adequately does the job.

Let me ask you a question I have asked thehomer. Do you think these physical laws exist necessarily i.e. Do you think they couldn't have existed any other way?

Kay 17: @anony
Sorry, you got it right, God is not an accumulation of parts and causes. A mistake.

no worries

In furtherance with what I said, the Universe (by theists' argument) is a product of a mind. A mind is complex and by such nature, have a cause.

But you and I both know that a mind is not complex in the same sense that for instance a car is complex.
For example, a mind is simpler than a car in the sense of what it is made of (i.e. it's form)
yet a car is simpler than a mind in the sense of what it can do (i.e. function). You see what I mean?

The conflict arises in stating God is uncaused in spite of complexity necessary in a mind and still insisting he is simple is a contradiction.

The question is complexity in what sense? God is very simple in form and yet very complex in function. There is no contradiction there?

God and Chance are being measured by the yardstick of simplicity, in that regard, they are comparable.

The question you have not answered is: the yardstick of simplicity in what context?

Kay 17: That's what most theists say. Deepsight especially has claimed God the simplest entity, such that he is an accumulation of parts and causes.

However complexity prima facie indicates causation.

I think you mean simple in the sense that God IS NOT an accumulation of parts and causes. However you were arguing that God is simpler than chance in the sense of a particular explanation for the universe but chance is not simple in the same sense that God is simple. It looks like somewhere along the line of you argument, you did a bait and switch maneuver.


Now how chance came to be compared to mind in the same context of simplicity is what I don't understand. It looks like comparing apples and oranges to me but of course you can make your argument clearer.

Kay 17: @anony

Your double pendulum diagram shows a good degree of symmetry, perfect lines and angles. If you can notice on a plane, some intersecting points are arranged to form a curve.

I think that's an argument you should take up with thehomer. He presented that as an example

thehomer: Where exactly did I make these concessions?

I don't know.

Lol. of course you don't

I was making the point which you missed. I said the universe had chaos inbuilt. You asked for a reason for this conclusion and I presented it.

I got all that. What I am asking is whether that diagram is an example of what you meant when you were talking about chaos because it was one of the examples given in the article you presented.

by the way this is a summary of chaos as per your article:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. - Edward Lorenz

Do you agree with it?

What I showed you was that however the universe turned out, you would still have given the same answer to these very different questions and that means your answer which tries to explain it all actually explains nothing.

You can't make this counterargument because it presupposes that the universe does not exist necessarily and you just said you don't know. Do you know now?

Now can you tell me who created the moon?

I've told you who created the universe. Go figure

thehomer: @Mr anony
So was that why you didn't answer these questions raised by mazaje?

answered here

If the devil himself who was in heaven could sin along with a lot of angels, what makes you think that a murderer who went to heaven won't be able to sin? When you say a murderer in heaven is an impossibility, then it tells me that you've not been reading my responses because unless you can definitively tell me that Jeffrey Dahmer is not and will never be in heaven, then you're simply wrong. You see, all you've done is to ignore other parts of your Bible in order to massage out information that you didn't even provide with your highlighting.

This shows you have not been paying attention.
Now that you know a bit more about what being born again is, kindly answer from scripture: Was the devil ever born again?
About Jeffrey Dahmer I answered here
What information specifically were you looking for about being born again that you feel I have "massaged out"?

I notice that for some reason, you never actually said what it means to be born-again and you never said whether or not you agreed with what I posted. You never added the depth of this idea of yours to be born-again finally, you've just shown that the extra questions you tacked on which you also never answered here were just you way of shifting the goalposts.

Are you blind? Read my post again, I explained what it means to be born again,
About whether I agreed with you or not; I told you that wikipedia was too basic for me to give my full agreement however I didn't disagree. You don't ask questions then try to force the answer you want you know.
About adding depth to what it means to be born again, I think I Muskeeto and I have done precisely that. If there is anything more you want to know about being born-again, you'll have to ask for it specifically.
The extra questions I tacked on was my way of testing if you actually knew what you were talking about. Apparently you didn't

Your questions still await you whenever you're ready.

Lol. I laugh in Aramaic

thehomer: Generally, how we tell the difference is that works of intelligent agents are tools that are used to achieve a certain end while works of unintelligent agents don't have such ends. And these tools are often assembled in a way that is unlikely to occur by chance.

Now can you answer your own questions?

I think I can almost get what you are saying but seeing as you have the remarkable ability of being deliberately vague, I'll push you to clarify further. As per the bold. Must you know precisely what the end to be achieved is in order to know if it is a design or not?

I have already answered the same question here (fourth paragraph).

thehomer: No they don't "define" it that way, they say he did it.



To show you that you would say the very same thing.



Is there any other form of existence?



But I never made such a concession.



You never said who created the moon. The moon wasn't created by anyone because there was no one here to create it. It has to follow the physical laws of the universe because it is the type of thing that does.

This is just you beating about the bush and you know it. You have already conceded that the laws defining how the universe behaves do not exist necessarily. You wouldn't have made the contention "if the universe had been any other way" if you thought the universe existed necessarily. Not only that, you have also conceded that the universe began to exist at some point.

Now let me ask you again and this time pointblank. [size=13pt]Does the universe exist necessarily in it's current form and function? Yes or no.[/size]

And just so you don't misunderstand me, by "form" I mean - the way it appears, and by "function" I mean - the way it behaves

Be very careful how you answer this question. Let me tell you the implications: If you say yes, then you would be saying that the idea of a multiverse is a logically incoherent idea. If you say no, then you would be saying that the universe must ultimately be contingent on something that exists necessarily. Your call

Here you go. Pay attention to the applications.

I have read it and I think you have missed my point but just to be sure I got what you were talking about, by "chaos" you mean something like this?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Double-compound-pendulum.gif
The movement of a double pendulum.

Kay 17: ^^
A mind?

Hmm, how does a mind seem simpler than chance in this scenario?

Kay 17: Although I'm not in the "chance responsible for the Universe" gang, but what dismisses Chance as responsible for the intricate complexity is the fact that the idea of Chance is too simplistic to conceiand pre-determine the Universe.

A more complex mind on the other hand, can grasp and conceive the mysteries and grandiose design of the Universe, just as an engineer's trained conceptual mind would.

The problem is God seems simpler than Chance.

Interesting. How so?

.....and by the way what do you define God as?

musKeeto: @Homer, I hope I have your permission to do this. I'd love to hear Anony's answers to Mazaje's questions..

@Anony, e don tey I read Bible, but I'll try..



Christianity claims that man is inherently evil and therefore faulty. Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden put us into turmoil and cast us away from God. The New Testament chronicles God's attempts to get back to us by sending his Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins. His death frees us from the shame brought on by Adam's disobedience and into a new walk with God. We're born into sin, and become born again by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

---

Salvation is not of works but of faith.

Romans 10:

1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Salvation is the Christian's journey with God, the whole process from start to finish.

---

I'll skip both; they'd probably spin off another thread...

---

A relationship with Christ is one in which Christ becomes Author and Finisher .. all thoughts are subject to his will and words, a life lived for his purpose.

---

I don try. Can the thread move on?

You try. Apparently Thehomer agrees too. I still hold that he is ignorant of what it means to be born again and failed to bluff his way through.


Now let us go back to the first place I asked him this question here

thehomer: How do you know there's no sickness in Heaven? If God will be accepting murderers who just "accepted Jesus" before their execution, who knows what they'll do to people they encounter in Heaven.

Mr anony: do you know what it means to be born again? or perhaps the more important question is; do you want to know?

Now why did I ask that question? Simply this: Because if thehomer really knew what it means to be born-again and what it means for a Christian to go Heaven, he will not have brought up the idea of a murderer in heaven because such a thing is simply impossible.

To be born again means to be born of God, to walk according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh (i.e to be dead to sin). One does not earn a born again status by doing good things. One becomes born again when he completely submits to the Lordship of Christ and is transformed by Him. The Spirit of God now dwells in him, changing his desires such that he now wants the things of God and not things patterned after his selfish lusts.

Now why is it that Christians have been known to fall into sin atimes? I think the following passage explains it best:

Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom 7:15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
Rom 7:17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.
Rom 7:19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self,
Rom 7:23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
Rom 7:24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
Rom 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
Rom 8:4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot;
Rom 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.
Rom 8:12 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh--
Rom 8:13 for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live.
Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!"
Rom 8:16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
Rom 8:17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Now what was I trying to point out with that passage? I was showing that as long as we live on earth our renewed spirit which is born of God will contend with the flesh. But when the Lord gives us a new body at His coming, when we inherit God's kingdom, we will not have the lusts of our flesh to contend with anymore but we would have been transformed in Spirit and now also in body and our desires will be in tune with God's therefore it will be impossible for us to sin in heaven.

Alfa Seltzer: I have yet to see someone sign such a document. Imagine authorizing people to kill you if you fall sick!
Logicboy, would you sign such a document?

It's the law. People actually go out of their way to buy the form here.

@thehomer:

To make it easier for me to understand you: Can you tell the difference between the work of an intelligent agent and the effect of a non-intelligent agent? i.e can you tell the difference between something that is designed and something that is not designed? If you can, then please tell me how you differentiate between design and non-design by observation.

thehomer: The single deity of various monotheistic religions.

Lol, monotheistic religions define God as the creator of the cosmos.

No I did not concede that. What I said was that if the universe had been any other way, you would have made the same statement. It does not mean that the universe actually could have been any other way.

Lol, listen to yourself. Then why bring up the "if" when you don't think the universe can possibly be any other way?

No I do not agree with that claim either.
e.g If I could fly, I would fly to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Does this mean that I believe I can fly?

But it means that you have invoked a possible world where you can fly in other to make your argument. Basically you have said that your lack of ability to fly is not an impossibility only that in your current form of existence you cannot fly.

No I made no such concession. So the sun was created? So were hydrogen and the ocean? Again, explains everything, explains nothing. Water is not wet by definition. Water can be H₂O by definition, a chemical by definition but not wet by definition. Wetness is one of its properties. Just as it is also a property of kerosene. I don't see how you can talk about a computer computing without having some notion of how it actually is.

Lol, my point has already been made. By conceding that "everything" could possibly exist in a different form, you have granted that "everything" does not exist by necessity and hence is contingent on a necessary something

The moon began to exist and it orbits round the earth but it wasn't created by anyone.

Yeah it began to exist and orbits around the earth because of initial conditions and physical laws that allow it to do so. In fact we can accurately mathematically predict it's birth existence and death by imputing a set of specific mathematical constants in our equations. These set of specific constants ensure that the moon fits into the order of the universe. We could just as easily have a universe where this numbers could be different and then we'll have a different particle behaving very diferently or even no particle at all. Not only the moon but the whole universe follows this same mathematical order.
Now tell me exactly how you know that the moon wasn't created and why it has to follow this specific order and not another?

Would you like an article? Because that is specific enough to make my point.

Yeah let's have it.

Avicenna: Is it right by mankind?
@Alfa Seltzer
truly, euthanizing suffering patient(painful,'incurable' diseases) may slow down development of treatment for said disease but
compassion for that patient is what made me think about validity and correctness of euthanasia.

for instance, a adult man is involved in an accident, he suffers loss of control of his limbs and complete paralysis.The resulting prognosis; no treatment(cure) now or in the near future( i know there's lot of activity these days on treatment of spine injuries, just painting a scenario), he runs out of funds to pay for his round the clock care. Hospital put up some funds for a few weeks then abandon him. he CANNOT move. This causes accumulation of fluids on one side of his body. he's in extreme pain.he BEGS for death. NO ONE obliges him. he passes away after some days.
Now,
is the best thing keeping him alive by donating funds to him with no 'preferable' treatment in his future? Donations are risky by the way.
or allowing him to go without pain and in dignity?

this is a question of morality of the action.

Interesting, I'd still say you don't have the right to kill him.

Now permit me to tell you what the law states here in UK. Here you have the right to make an advanced decision i.e. "if anything happens and I am in a vegetative state, pull the plug". But you'll have to make this decision and put it in writing and validate it legally before your calamity befalls you.

striktlymi: Anony I believe Thehomer has taken the bull by the horn...

Your turn!

Lololol, he only copypasted from his wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again_%28Christianity%29

I think Muskeeto did a much better job and apparently he endorsed it so I'm currently preparing a response for that.

Deep Sight: Don't worry, with time, this could become a human being - Thehomer

lololol...

thehomer: I don't believe in one. It is up to you to actually justify your own definitions.

the question was how do you define God? not whether you believed in God.

Sure I do. And I know how easy it is to confuse those terms.

good

Err. You don't know that there are possible worlds with different constants.

Sorry your argument here is moot because you have already conceded that it is possible for the universe to work in a way totally different to how it currently works

No I haven't I'm simply pointing out to you that if the universe had been that way or if we had observed a universe that way, you would have said the same thing thus explaining nothing.

and this shows that you believe it is possible for physical laws to be different than how they are now. You agree that physical laws are not the way they are by necessity

Well, you'll have to do some work justifying your definition. Again, water would still be wet with or without your God. The universe already does that so for your explanation, look to the universe.

But you have just conceded that the physical laws defining the universe do not exist necessarily but arbitrarily. this allows for an agent. Secondly the universe has a beginning. If something begins to exist and works according to a specific pattern such that it's behavior can be accurately predicted and not many other possible ways, It can be said to be created. Secondly, water is wet by definition does not tell us that it is or isn't created. A computer computes by definition equally does not tell us whether or not it is created. I am making an argument of function (how a thing works) and you are attacking a strawman of form (how a thing is)

You haven't because the features you gave would still hold without your God so you haven't explained anything at all.

As I said, if you think the universe didn't have a creator, then you are welcome to explain how something can begin to exist and work according to a specific pattern and yet be uncreated.

I mean that there are chaotic elements within the universe.

I remember asking for specifics

mazaje: OK. . . .
Or causes. . . .
What was the universe designed for?

This is irrelevant to the thread. I don't need to know exactly what it is designed for in other to know that it is a design. All I have to show on this thread is evidence that the universe was designed.

. . .How does the universe behave and what was it designed and created for?. . .

How does the universe behave? It acts in accordance to physical laws of nature e.g the law of gravity

When we see the universe we see utter chaos. . .Collinding stars, exploding stars that give rise to new stars, collisions that form planets and destroy planets etc. . .What specific patters does the universe follow?

Try specific patterns of motion such that we can calculate and predict these movements, collisions and explosions.

. . .Why must there be a god and not many gods?. . .If you insist that the universe must follow the way a human society functions then there must be gods and not a single god. . .The universe is not a human society and must not behave or function as one.. .

I never said anything about the universe functioning as a human society