[geocentrism] Re: What, when and where is Hell?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:05:43 -0800 (PST)
OK,.. Give me a few more days I am a little behind on some other things .....Let me just say this to maybe open the door for anyone else to comment on........ I affirm that Hell is a real Place of eternal torment for those who reject Christ. j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Thanks Allen! I have a couple articles I would appreciate your comment on any of them (since they are all similar), whenever you have time. About hell not being at all what is commonly taught. www.myth-one.com/chapter_26.htm www.tentmaker.org/articles/ifhellisreal.htm www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/fromhellseternaldeath.htm www.helltruth.com/home/hathhellnofury/tabid/253/default.aspx Thanks, James... Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Thanks Ja, This is the best I could do with the time I have ..I am happy to address anything else in here that anyone feels I missed or that I have written.......... ..the existence of evil poses no challenge to the Christian concept of God, or to any aspect of Christianity. Instead, it is the non-Christian worldviews that cannot make sense of the existence of evil, if they can have a concept of evil at all.Good so far.... .He concludes his essay with Although many people are fond of challenging Christians with the problem of evil, the truth is that Christianity is the only worldview in which the existence of evil does not create a logical problem. .............However, Much of what is between is a mess of logical contradictions and invalid methodologies.... The doctrine of "free will" is unbiblical and heretical, and some have even followed the doctrine to its next logical step in saying that if man were to be truly free, then God cannot really know for certain what man would do, thus denying the omniscience of God. But even then, God knew that it was possible for free will to produce extreme and horrendous evil, so that the same problem remains. Scripture teaches that God's will determines everything. Nothing exists or happens without God, not merely permitting, but actively willing it to exist or happen: This position effectively states that God is either unable to create freewill by virtue of his "Omnipotence" or He did not decree man to have free will....fine.. But that is the issue that he must demonstrate first .....the problem is his methodology is backwards with scripture. He attempts to define the meaning of scripture based on his logical conclusions about GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY...Here is where he does it.. The Bible teaches that the non-Christian is a sinner, and at the same time teaches that he lacks the ability to obey God. This means that man is morally responsible even if he lacks moral ability; that is, man must obey God even if he cannot obey God. It is sinful for a person to disobey God whether or not he has the ability to do otherwise. Thus moral responsibility is not grounded on moral ability or on free will; rather, moral responsibility 6 is grounded on God's sovereignty ? man must obey God's commands because God says that man must obey, and whether or not he has the ability to obey is irrelevant.If it is mans capacity is truly irrelevant for Gods commands then why does he use mans capacity to attempt to argue the nature of God?s command..? Even Hittler gave orders that could not be kept did not mean that some of the orders he gave could be kept...so what? Its only irrelevant if all commands can't be kept... As I have pointed out the law was never meant to save anyone in that it was predestined that Jesus would do that.......He then makes quite a leap here. Thus moral responsibility is not grounded on moral ability or on free will..If it does not matter whether or not he has the ability to do otherwise and ability is irrelevant then why wouldn?t God command what man is able...better yet , if he commands it how can they not do it...... if all is by God?s command in the first place ,..you must demonstrate that all commands cannot be kept not just assert that man can?t keep any command because there are commands he could not...!?.. If man obeys because of God?s Sovereignty to command it then why don?t all men obey since he command all men everywhere to repent?Acts17:30 and More importantly if as he latter asserts God decrees evil too then how is anything that anyone does contrary to God?s command or will ?....Latter he asserts that God decrees evil as well...obedience as well as disobedience (whatever disobedience would mean if everything is by God?s decree/command how is it disobedient or contrary to his will ..?)...even the evil and sinners in the world would be obeying God by his definition of God's SOVEREIGNTY... ( keep the Commandment of God if as the argument goes he commands everything)......if it is not contrary to his will or he does not command disobedience then what is the argument?..... how does the fact that we have the responsibility to obey even if we cant obey exclude the possibility that we can obey? ... if God Commands/decrees all to obey then how could anyone not obey since he commanded it?....If God Decrees all then there is no such thing as "Against his will" or "in accordance with his will" since as they argue everything is by SOVEREIGN decree anyway....this is foolishness of the highest order and rejects any and all of Gods Descriptions of his own nature....... this is the epitome of man siting in the temple of God showing himself that he is God....forget what God states hear how I reason it..!? Although many professing Christians use the free will defense, and to some people the explanation may sound reasonable, it is an irrational and unbiblical theodicy ? it fails to answer the problem of evil, and it contradicts Scripture. First, this approach only postpones addressing the problem, in that it transforms the debate from why evil exists in God's universe to why God created a universe with the potential for such great evil.Second, Christians affirm that God is omniscient, so that he did not create the universe and humankind realizing only that they had the potential to become evil; rather, he knew for certain that there would be evil. Thus either directly or indirectly, God created evil. Which is exactly what he asserts at toward the end that God is the cause of evil If and only if God did not or could not created free will external of his own will to be "Against his will"...the fact that He is God and Doesn?t not have to give man choice is not a valid argument that he did not...........these are not arguments, they are just assertions that he did not create free will by virtue of the fact that he dose not have to....!!!!????.If by the end anyone feels I have not answered the question of Evil please bring that to my attention with a specific question 2 We may distinguish between natural evil and moral evil ? natural evil includes natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods, whereas moral evil refers to the wicked actions that rational creatures commit. Now, even if the free will defense provides a satisfactory explanation for moral evil, it fails to adequately address natural evil. Some Christians may claim that it is moral evil that leads to natural evil; however, only God has the power to create a relationship between the two, so that earthquakes and floods do not have any necessary connections with murder and theft unless God makes it so ? that is, unless God decides to cause earthquakes and floods because of murder and theft committed by hiscreatures. Thus God again appears to be the ultimate cause of evil, whether natural or moral.Even if Adam's sin had brought death and decay, not only to mankind but also to the animals, Scripture insists that not one sparrow can die apart from God's will (Matthew 10:29). That is, if there is any connection between moral evil and natural evil, the connection is not inherent (as if anything is inherent apart from God's will), but rather sovereignly imposed by God. Even the seemingly insignificant cannot occur without, not merely the permission, but the active will and decree of God. Christians are not deists ? we do not believe that this universe operates by a set of natural laws that are independent from God. The Bible shows us that God is now actively running the universe, so that nothing can happen or continue apart from God's active power and decree (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). If we should use the term at all, what we call "natural laws" are only descriptions about how God regularly acts, although he is by no means bound to act in those ways. If that is true Then God really is the Author and Progenitor of evil, which is argument toward the end..... . But what necessitates that God is the author of evil?....Ironically many who argue against free will miss that if God did not create free will eternal of God?s own will there can be no "against his will" or even evil that God does not create..... Because to argue that there is no free will external of God?s own will and as he claims here God is now actively running the universe, so that nothing can happen or continue apart from God's active power and decree ..(the devil lies murders ect)...really does make God specifically and directly responsible for, author, creator and sustainer of all evil.. Because as he asserts nothing can happen without God decreeing it ..only a created free will external of God?s own will could keep God innocent of the lies and murder that he (God himself) has decreed and created if in fact God created it..........God stated John 8:44.He was a murder from the beginning....when he speaketh a lie, he specketh of his own for he is the father of it ....where did Satan get his own unless God gave him the ability to make his own?.If God Gave him the ability to make his own then truly it is Satan?s own but if Satan and man cannot do anything external of God?s will then God is the only one who can will and creates anything that exist....then everything that exist is in accordance with God?s will ther is no such thing as contrary to the will of God.. lies murder ect........unless of course God did not really mean that it was from Satan?s own..maybe God is just passing the buck on to Satan..... He?s God he can do that right? But if God is just playing with words then does it change who actually created and sustains all the evil?.....ummmmm..latter we see that is exactly what Mr Cheung argues. Therefore, although we may affirm that man has a will as a function of the mind, so that the mind indeed makes choices, these are never free choices, because everything that has to do with every decision is determined by God. Since the will is never free, we should never use the free will theodicy when addressing the problem of evil. This is a important premises for his arguments.....It is based on something ........but what is it based on?....his experience of and with God? How does he know that God has determined every decision? To know something beforehand is not the same thing as determine it any more then I know before hand everyone will not agree with what i say........ I am not determining/controlling that............or maybe I am..ummm.......God claimed foreknowledge He does not claim to be the progenitor of evil or of everything in the universe...He simply concludes that (at the end of his free will arguments) based on his assertions here to make his case ...How does he know that God cannot create "free will" external of God?s own will? When did God tell him that? In fact if God cannot create "free will" external of Gods will, by virtue of the fact that God is so Sovereign and Omnipotent then how can God be Sovereign & or Omnipotent? How does he define God?s determination external of scripture then use that to define What the scriptures states to justify his argument...!? This is his circular fallacy. The only way to define what God can and cannot do or what God has and has not done is if God tell us. We can not logically deduce it from our understanding first and then use that to define Gods word because the only and all understanding we have of what God did or did not do or can and cannot do comes from God?s word in the first place. Christians must reject the free will defense simply because Scripture rejects free will; rather, Scripture teaches that God is the only one who possesses free will. He says in Isaiah 46:10, "My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." ...this verse does not state that God is the only one who possess free will...nor does his next reference... On the other hand,man's will is always enslaved either to sin or to righteousness: "But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness" (Romans 6:17-18). Free will does not exist ? it is a concept assumed by many professing Christians without biblical warrant. ...otherwise all he has done is made assertions and evoked a circular fallacy, by imposing his "ultimate logical conclusion" of a concept or a verse or set of scriptures on all the rest of scriptures regardless of what they state....The imposed "ultimate logical conclusion" is true if and only if the verses you imposed that "ultimate logical conclusion" do in fact support that conclusion but by this time you have used the conclusion to define what they mean so did not demonstrate that as such you have simply reached a "ultimate logical conclusion" from verses that can support your position and then forced the meaning of any other verses to conform to your "ultimate logical conclusion" that presupposed everything else that followed.........................If God had not given us his word in the first place we wouldn?t "know" anything anyway to be able to reason or use logic to evaluate the methodology,.. The information cannot be logical evaluated itself first because the information is needed first to do the evaluation We can evaluate/ employ logic in the methodology we use for a determination in what is the information or how we interpret the information but the information must be received & or accepted first ............So how and why folk think they can go beyond scripture to ascertain anything that they have never experienced is contemptuous at best...... Rather then let scripture define the nature of God, men go to a lot of trouble of contemplating the nature of God and then use their contemplations of the nature of God (& or with favorite sets of scripture) to then define what scripture "really" means when it makes specific statements about God his work or his nature....example we use terms like omnipresent, Sovereign, omniscience, Omnipotence......(nothing wrong with the terms themselves, although we might be hard pressed to find some of them in scripture)...........But who is defining those terms?,........what do they mean and how do/can we know that?...well one might say that God is everywhere and all/ has unlimited power..... means He can do anything....that is certainly consistent with Websters & or any logical definition external of scripture for those terms and one could use those definitions to define or "interpret" what scripture states about God and that is a logical definition eternal of scripture .......but that is not how scripture defines the nature of God because God cannot do just anything!............ God cannot lie (Titus 1:2)....... I can lie ..I can do something God cannot...........therefore one could argue that God is not Omnipotence .........if we used just our definitions & or logic to define that term in relation to God then God cant?t be omniscience either for he states Hebrews 8:12..and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more...But God is supposed to know everything, you can debate what the measns all day long at the end of the day you either accept it as true or reject it because it is not "Logical"...or...... God is not in hell therefore he can?t be omnipresent...or ..... God is so Sovereign that anything He commands will happen then what ever he commands will happen but God commands all men everywhere to repent(Acts 17:30) but they don?t and in fact God also stated everyone would not do that.......The "real" philosophical question is that if He commands they all to repent but states everyone will not which one of his attributes gets compromised his Omnipotence for making the command or his Omniscience for knowing everyone would not.........is God therefore contradictory,...nonsense! The problem was with the "Ultimate logical conclusion/definitions" of those terms, not God!............Since the information must come first and God is the ultimate source for that information there is no logical deductive path that one can make for a nature of God where God can do anything, knows everything and O by the way, create evil without having really created it. The Bible teaches that the non-Christian is a sinner, and at the same time teaches that he lacks the ability to obey God. This means that man is morally responsible even if he lacks moral ability; that is, man must obey God even if he cannot obey God. It is sinful for a person to disobey God whether or not he has the ability to do otherwise. Thus moral responsibility is not grounded on moral ability or on free will; rather, moral responsibility 6 is grounded on God's sovereignty ? man must obey God's commands because God says that man must obey, and whether or not he has the ability to obey is irrelevant. In the first place, free will is logically impossible. If we picture the exercise of the will as a movement of the mind toward a certain direction, the question arises as to what moves the mind, and why it moves toward where it moves. To answer that the "self" moves the mind begs the question, since the mind is the self, and thus the same question remains. Does not Christ himself point out the Plalms "Ye are all gods"..is not man made in the image of God then why would anyone believe that God did not or rather cannot by virtue of his sovereignty not create free will external of his will..........John 8:44.He was a murder from the beginning....when he speaketh a lie, he specketh of his own for he is the father of it ....How is he the father of it if God Decrees it and or God did not give free will external of God?s own will?...........That is the whole point to being made in the image of God..?!....begs the question..only if you beilve that God did not create man in his image or a free will eternal of Gods own will...free will is logically impossible...He should have stated the opposite........It is not possible to exist or know that ones exist in the first place without a free will external of God?s own will and without God being the creator of all evil and even perpetuating it by God?s own decree!.......... God demonstrates (states) that he does and has acted without time and within time, he can limit Himself or He can chose not to.......the point being only God can define for man his nature. You cannot reason out Gods nature or logically evaluate it external of the claims God Himself makes........ certainly not in philosophy and philosophers...and you can only know his nature from what God (in scripture) tells you, not from what it does not state, and certainly not from any philosophical reasoning......where is the wise the disputer of the age?(1Chorinthians 1:20) ....This is the importance of using all the scriptures first and not reason among yourselves what a given set of scripture means and then force the "ultimate logical conclusion" on all the others...Logic & or Logical principles can only be used to evaluate methodology Logic cannot evaluate the substance of anything itself.........We can use logic to demonstrate the value of starting with what you have not with what you do not have ........If there is a question as to what scripture teaches on a subject start with the scriptures that actually mention the subject in question first not use others that can be interpreted in many ways depending on your theology and then use your interpretation to define scripture that make specific statements about the question at hand.... that is methodology ..............However to use Websters and or logic to reason out first the nature of omnipresent, Sovereign, omniscience nature of God and then use the "Ultimate logical conclusions" of your arguments to interpret scripture is to use logic to evaluate substance, which logic cannot do!..Because logically the information logically proceeds any evaluation of the information.....otherwise the evaluation cannot be demonstrated as a logically valid one. The census of Israel taken by David provides an example of evil decreed by God and performed through secondary agents:Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah." (2 Samuel 24:1) Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1) The two verses refer to the same incident. There is no contradiction if the view being presented here is true. God decreed that David would sin by taking the census, but he 10 caused Satan to perform the temptation as a secondary agent.3 there is no contradiction if free will exist of God?s own will..he is using this tho make a point but he does so just like a relativist might use missile trajectories or Pendulum as proof for HC....... this does not exclude free will if you take them at face value...?..Although, what he states could be true it is not exclusive....so what. .!?..If free will exist eternal of God?s will then who is to stop Bob and joe and sally sue from all provoking the same person at the same time?..This does not demonstrate anything except how he chooses to "read" it. However, since God calls himself good, and since God has defined goodness for us byrevealing his nature and commands, evil is thus defined as anything that is contrary to his nature and commands..............Since God is good, and since he is the only definition of goodness,it is also good that he decreed the existence of evil Since we derive our very concept and definition of goodness from God, to accuse him of evil would be like saying that good is evil, which is a contradiction. If God is all there is to creation of everything and as his argument attempts to assert there is no "real" evil ( just a human concept) in relationship to God..... since God decrees all/everything then how can a contradiction really exist?...How can you define anything as contray to his commands if the very thing you give that defintion to is his command...!?....This is utterly ridiculous nonsense!..... Show where God decreed the existence and sustains evil.... quite telling us that he could and must by virtue of the necessity of your reasoning of how to read scripture rather then what can be acutely read in scripture.... ....God does claims that a lie came from Satan?s own ( where ever did he get his own?...his own what?...... unless God is lying Satan does not have his own its really God?s or God gave Satan the ability for his own external of God..one makes god a liar the other simply takes it at face value) ...The real and only contradiction here is his.... If God decrees and determines all and If there is no free will external of God?s own will, then nothing can be contrary to his will since His will as Mr Cheung attempts to argue constitutes everything and all that is!..Maybe we should all debate what is "really" is ..worked for Clinton didn?t it....? He Goes to a lot of effort to address "free will" and even seems to lose sight of the whole evil in the world thing. In the end though, at least here, he makes the same logical and doctrinal error as I demonstrated before namely He reasons first to interpret scripture rather then using what scripture states to evaluate ones reasoning of scripture.........That is the error he is employing in his arguments on free will....Logic & or Logical principles can only be used to evaluate ones methodology. Logic cannot evaluate the substance of anything itself.....& or ..Logic can validate it cannot describe or create ( this is also the reason why the proof for God would/is/does not necessitate being preeminent or above God Himself) ....... ........ Put your faith in what Gods word tells you first... then use logic to evaluate the methodology in the reasoning you used in arriving at your conclusions,........Philosophize at your own risk.............Logic cannot create valid conclusions themselves, which is what you attempt when you evaluate first and on that basis accept the information that you are attempting to evaluate......When anyone "interprets" scripture based on how they argue logically external of the source document for the argument in question they are bound to eventual engage in the same circular fallacy......When scripture explains when and how God works throughout all of time you either accept it or you add your "ultimate logical conclusion" to it. When folk do that they inevitably get so caught up in the "ultimate logical conclusion" of a given argument they see in a given verse or set of verses that they then become blind to anything else the scripture states no mater how emphatically anything else states about the very questions that might affect that "ultimate logical conclusion" if they had proceed logically to begin with ...( Logical Methodology starts with the specific and moves to the nonspecific)....what his argument like all the others attempt is use non specific verses about what God can and or cannot do or has and has not done to define the very verses that do specifically specify what God stated he has and has not done...& or worse make claims about what God can or cannot do based on what scripture does not state via there "Reasoning".........The specific references in scripture take logical preference over vague arguments about scriptures where i could just as easily make any number of numerous arguments with if you asume that my conclusion of my argument is valid in the first place. .....Although you may logically make conclusions external of any & or all relevant scripture then use your conclusions to "read" scripture .....that is all that these arguments do.....There simply is no logical argument for the absence of free will, certainly no logical way to demonstrate that there is no such thing so that anyone could be "aware" of it, even if you could, since all is just decrees from God.....Nor is there any scripture that can logically lead anyone to that conclusion either without invoking circular fallacious first. j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen, Have you read http://www.rmiweb.org/other/problemevil.pdf ? Seems appropriate, given the recent lengthy discussions on predestination and freewill. If you find the time, I would appreciate your take on this article. JA Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Martin and Bernie..............excellent very good!..Demonstrates that when they attempt to show arguments Pro God & morality as foolishness they invariably must invoke the very "foolishness" they claim to avoid as the foundation for their own arguments,... the only difference, of course, being in what they put their faith in and why, not whether or not they live by "faith" ......very good "Martin G. Selbrede" <mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: And if you liked Cheung's "Professional Morons," you'd enjoy this debate between him and apostate Christian Derek Sansone here, which illustrates the principles Cheung enunciates in real-world action: http://www.rmiweb.org/other/sansone-cheung.htm -- Martin On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:04 PM, bernie brauer wrote: http://www.rmiweb.org/other/promorons.pdf by Vincent Cheung Professional Morons Last modified: 08-26-2005 / Download PDF Examples on how non-Christian philosophers are really no better than the most incompetent non-Christians in the substance of their arguments. --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. Martin G. Selbrede Chief Scientist Uni-Pixel Displays, Inc. 8708 Technology Forest Place, Suite 100 The Woodlands, TX 77381 281-825-4500 main line (281) 825-4507 direct line (281) 825-4599 fax (512) 422-4919 cell mselbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxxx / martin.selbrede@xxxxxxxxxxxx --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.