[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.
Other related posts:
