jaybird18c

That's an interesting quote. It begs the question as to which side is really insane. Belief or non-belief. The Delusion of Atheism https://youtu.be/HaQpENJLx-I

God did not create man to sin. He created him to be in relationship with himself. However, sin entered the world through man. Man chose to sin. God knew it would occur. God allowed it to occur for reasons mentioned before. Sin has had a ripple effect throughout time affecting all who follow. The nature of man is corrupted from what it was originally. That sin nature is passed along to us. Apart from God, all of us would freely choose to reject him and go our own ways the result of which has also already been discussed. However, God chose not to leave us to ourselves. God could have chosen other ways but he chose this one. God made you in his own image. It's like looking into a mirror. However, one which is warped by sin, brought about by man, not God, making the reflection distorted.

God does not control you. You weren't created to sin and he does not cause you to sin. Just because he knows what you will does not remove your choice or responsibility.

But you're not God and, therefore, omniscient.

God created for his own glory and for our good and he did know man would fall.

God is both fair and just. (Romans 1: 19-20) "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

God is in fact omniscient. He also knows the nature of man perfectly. He knows what man will choose before he does so. Because God knows what man will choose does not mean that he controls what he will do. The fallen nature of man ensures that he will choose that which is in opposition to the will of God. He will always choose that which is consistent with his nature. But it's still his free choice even if it is predictable. It's just that he would never choose differently unless his very nature were changed. That is exactly what occurs when the spirit of a man is regenerated. The Bible describes it as becoming a new creature in Christ with new desires. That person is now free to choose that which is consistent with his new nature. That which is consistent with the will of God. Charles Spurgeon used an analogy. He said that pigs in a barnyard get up every day and go to the trough full of slop to eat. You could place a gourmet meal on a platter on the other side of the barnyard but they will consistently choose the slop. They'll even roll around in it. It's predictable. They're pigs. They do what pigs do. Now if the nature of that pig could be transformed into that of a man, he might get still get up and go to the slop trough. However, this time he'll realize something is wrong. His new nature would change his inclinations. Whether a pig or a man, however, free will is exercised.

Perhaps he attempted to address the paradox, but he certainly failed to resolve it. It's honestly what made it make sense to me. I don't see the paradox. Seriously.

My evidence comment was in reference to the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible. There's plenty evidence for the existence of God also. However, I'm quite certain you don't agree with any of that either.

You think the problem with your arguments are that they're not dumb enough? That's pretty special, bro Yeah exactly, it's an old fashioned girls name. Educate yourself and broaden your horizons. http://www.name-doctor.com/name-loraine-meaning-of-loraine-11903.html

And she explains why she disagrees with the cite, yeah? Because they definitely say two different things. You can't just paper over the cracks and pretend they're not there - these are not examples of a cohesive theory. There's nothing illogical about calling a guy Loraine? I beg to differ! Bet he was never bullied at school... I have no idea how to dumb the concept down for you any further. And his name is an old fashioned one.

Incomplete logic, failure to follow through the conclusion. God is not just omniscient, but omnipotent. God does not just have foreknowledge of events, but he has created every single aspect of the universe that lead to those events. It's the ultimate expression of the butterfly effect, in that a triple-O god could, as he was creating, fine tune the exact starting conditions of his creation to produce the exact results he desires, for every single person in it, for all of time. See, that lady gets it. You realise you just posted two contradictory sources, right? My comment was in response to what jcd11235 said: "An omniscient creator and a creation with free will must be mutually exclusive. Free will implies an unknowable future, even by god." I believe the small section on Boettner's book addresses what he was talking about.

It's from the same book. Strong's "Systematic Theology" is cited within Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination." I thought that was clear. Anyway, Boettner is a man, not a woman. There's nothing illogical about it. https://www.theopedia.com/loraine-boettner

"Foreknowledge must not be confused with foreordination. Foreknowledge presupposes foreordination, but is not itself foreordination. The actions of free agents do not take place because they are foreseen, but they are foreseen because they are certain to take place. Hence Strong says, "Logically, though not chronologically, decree comes before foreknowledge. When I say, 'I know what I will do,' it is evident that I have determined already, and that my knowledge does not precede determination, but follows it and is based upon it." [Systematic Theology, p. 357.] Since God's foreknowledge is complete, He knows the destiny of every person, not merely before the person has made his choice in this life, but from eternity. And since he knows their destiny before they are created, and then proceeds to create, it is plain that the saved and the lost alike fulfill his plan for them; for if he did not plan that any particular ones should be lost, he could at least refrain from creating them." The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination By Loraine Boettner Chapter 6, pg. 48

Do you ever have anything intelligent to add or are you just working really hard at being an ass?

I thought we were talking about the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible. But now we're on to the existence of God?

I "heard" you the first time. I'll ask again. What specifically are you looking for?

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

I wasn't raised in a religious environment and was an atheist up until 1998.

The Bible is in fact, among other things, a record of history. As for it being full of error as you say: "The fact is that there are indeed copyist errors on the biblical documents and they account for many alleged contradictions. Remember, it is the autographs (original writings) that are inspired and inerrant, not the copies. The copies we have now are copies of inspired documents. The copies are not themselves "inspired;" that is, they have no guarantee of being 100% textually pure. Does this then mean that we can't trust the Bible? Not at all. The copies are so accurate that all of the biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions like the words "the," "but," etc. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5%." https://carm.org/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible[

You dont "prove the Bible" in the same way you would prove something using scientific methodology, which seems to be what you're looking for and the only thing you'll accept (e.g. Airtight/incontrovertible). There are obviously skeptical alternative (e.g. possible) explanations all over the place. The preponderance of evidence (as you would appropriately judge a literary work, not a scientific theory) is explained very well by Ravi Zacharias. "Defend the Bible? I’d sooner defend a lion!” - Charles Spurgeon https://www.zachariastrust.org/why-trust-the-bible

Legal issues belong to Caesar. Caesar can get it from the estate or do without. Being dead, it won't matter to you, either way. "It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment." (Hebrews 9:27)

Given that christian literally means one who follows Christ, such a person has a reasonable claim to being a true christian. It's a legal issue. It doesn't matter how many times you've helped granny across the street if you're already a criminal. When you die, you've gotta pay the bill. How are you going to do it?

Only if you define righteousness as 'what god does'. If you define it according to any remotely acceptable moral code, then no. Romans 3

God’s character is always righteous. The God of the OT the same God in the NT. No. Biblical Christians do not. Only God is righteous. Our deeds cannot make us righteous. I refer you back to this: “As an atheist, you’ve obviously not made God the top priority in your life. If that be the case, you’ve idolized and assigned other things in your life a higher value. I assume that, in spite of your disbelief, you’ve used the Lord’s name in vain. Keeping his day holy would be out of the question. I’m sure you’ve not always honored your parents. If you’ve ever hated another without just cause, you’ve committed murder in your heart. If you’ve ever looked with lust outside the covenantal bounds of marriage, you’ve committed adultery in your heart, if not also in deed. If you’ve ever stolen something, regardless of value or when, you’re a thief. If you’ve ever told a lie, you’re a liar. If you’ve ever dwelt on the desire to have something which doesn’t belong to you, you’re guilty of coveting.”