3. We should be able to mark words ot sentences and color them differently. — Pippen

I've pointed out this before:

One thing I totally hate about the interface of this forum is that there's no adequate text editor. I can't centre text, can't wrap text around images, use different fonts, change font size, etc. It would make communicating stuff more interesting if we had a Word document kind of interface which gave you full flexibility. — Agustino

Right - you can check out other forums then. I don't remember old PF being messy, or somehow being affected by the "lack of common standards of presentation". I used colors and headlines several times there, and it was very successful, no one said anything. I remember several people, including 180 Proof, using colors and different font sizes too! — Agustino

2. We should get a set of basic logical and mathematical symbols, and some more smilies. — Pippen

Agreed :D

In order for him to rot — Beebert

That's what he deserves no? Why would he deserve anything better?

Yes but you said before that catholicism isnt christianity. Yet 1.2 billion of all Christians are catholics. — Beebert

No I didn't say that. I said it's not the deepest and most authentic form of Christianity, not that it's not Christianity. Catholics are going to Heaven.

I understand concerning tradition. It just seems to me that God could communicate a little more clearly than by sending his son to die in a remote part of the middle east among a bunch of superstitious and illiterate people 2000 years ago. And then Communicating these great news to the rest of us by starting to letting Paul have an epileptic seizure where he receives the whole gospel in a vision. And then time goes on and Rome takes over it all and proclaims the Good news by threatening people with a Dante's vision of hell and burning heretics and wirtches on the stake, which eventually after approximately 400 years of tyranny results in a reformation where a mean Little peasant is angry and wants to Change it all. So he Changes the whole idea of Faith and salvation basically which eventuellt results in us having 30 000-40 000 different denominations of christianity. And during all this time God and his truth has been hiding itself in the east! Doesnt this sound a bit ironic? — Beebert

Nope. Christianity has been very successful, so clearly that "remote" part of the Middle East wasn't so remote at all. It's the world's largest religion, and has spread today in all corners of the world - and it's spreading at a super-fast rate in the developing world.

So to articulate better, Silouan would cry about the fact that he is a criminal, but would rejoice about the fact that he's thrown in jail and prevented from harming others.

Silouan would never cry about an unrepentant criminal. In a sense he would cry - in that the poor criminal is so deluded and has so ruined his soul - but in another sense he would rejoice, for a great evil was exterminated!

Btw, John doesnt just want them destroyed, he wants them to be tormented forever and ever. And ever. Without end. Only then he can enjoy his paradise. — Beebert

That's not what John says.

If a criminal is in jail to rot, I would most often cry(Which Silouan would too obviously) but sometimes in exceptional cases rejoice. — Beebert

You have a very strange morality then. Clearly getting rid of evil is a good thing, not a bad thing. Would you rather that the criminal torment his innocent victims?! :s

When I call the New Testament ungifted, what I mean is basically that they seem incapable of delivering a clear message. But perhaps being clear didnt matter to them. — Beebert

It was exceedingly clear to people who were familiar with Tradition. The NT - such as Paul's letters - were given to communities which were ALREADY Christian. How did they become Christian? By the oral teachings of the Apostolic Tradition. The writings they received were meant only as further guidance, to be interpreted in the light of Tradition. It is through Tradition that they first became Christians, not through reading Paul's letters. So it may be difficult for you to interpret because you don't understand the metaphors that are used, but those who have the support of Tradition do.

Just read the Book of revelation. It really is a disgusting little piece of literature as far as beauty of writing is concerned. Its moral message isnt any better. — Beebert

I think the message of Revelation is great. The wicked will be destroyed, what's bad about that?! If a criminal is arrested and put in jail to rot there, will you cry or rejoice? I would rejoice, because we've been freed of an evil man who was harming us!

Though that is problematic. God both is in Eternity and isn't in Eternity.

So in a sense, since God is in eternity and outside of time, there was no beginning of creation really? — Beebert

From God's perspective yes. From your perspective no.

Is there no movement in eternity? By your definition if eternity, then what suggests that there will not be an end to the punishment of the wicked? If eternal punishment just means timeless punishment, or punishment outside of time, then Perhaps it will not be without end? — Beebert

I can't answer your questions. We'll have to wait and see. Clearly talk of "end" or "beginning" is pointless with regards to eternity.

I am not given an "oppurtunity" to play a part in God's game. — Beebert

No, you are honestly given the opportunity to do something good. Going to hell is throwing it away.

Yes I read your answers on the bible texts in question and unfortunately they didnt convince me. — Beebert

Why not? You keep telling me about the NT writers, that doesn't matter. The OT and NT were never meant to be stand-alone - they need to be read and understood through the lens of Apostolic Tradition.

It doesnt matter, living after death is still an extension of this failed life and existence right? — Beebert

Life after death doesn't necessarily mean it is like this life, especially if it's not a life in TIME.

And yes, God hardens your heart by allowing you to freely choose to do evil, instead of by force stopping you from choosing evil.

Romans 9. Try Reading that with an honest mind. Or all those parts in the "gospel" of John where he talks about how many of the jews not Only did not choose to Believe, But COULD NOT believe because God has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts. — Beebert

We've already gone through this. Please re-read the corresponding answer. You've never addressed it.

Why do you Christians and your God extend that in to all eternity? — Beebert

"extend"? I thought we've already clarified eternity isn't infinite temporal duration.

I am FORCED to play a part in God's mean little muppet show — Beebert

You're given the opportunity to play a part, do you want to waste it?

I believe Scripture is obvious: God wants some people to be destroyed. — Beebert

Nope, I've already outline why that's not the case.

If I am not free to choose whether I want to exist eternally or not — Beebert

No, you are not free to choose whether you WANT to exist eternally or not, but you are absolutely free to choose how you will act. That's what free will means.

Logical possibility also tells me the fuckin' electron can't both pass through the slit and not pass through the slit at the same time, but yet it fucking does both! So fuck logic - useless masturbatory device.

Take logic away, and anything is possible. Yet, clearly you don't believe every possibility. — Heister Eggcart

Yeah so what? :s logical possibility tells me jack shit about anything anyway. It's logically possible I'll wake up a duck tomorrow, logically possible the sun won't rise, etc. etc. Logical possibility is such bullshit anyway, might as well get rid of it completely. Utter nonsense this logical possibility, tells me jack shit about the world.

To my ears, creation ex nihilo is a mockery of the whole concept of freedom. And of Free will. — Beebert

What does creation ex nihilo have to do with free will?

But yet, you as a Christian say that I can not come to God by my free choice without him making me able to through his grace right? — Beebert

No I don't say that. You need grace to hear about God, but you've already heard about God. I don't think God withholds grace from anyone.

If I want to destroy myself, but I dont want to want that, what shall I then do? Change my Will? — Beebert

Simple. Keep wanting that, but don't act on it. You don't control what you want. So you pray for the strength to resist that urge/temptation, and for God to hopefully lift it away (but this may never be granted - the possibility of not acting on the urge and discovering your own freedom through that is sufficient). Also, if you don't get a miracle for yourself, you may be a miracle for someone else, by showing them that it is possible to live with such a condition!

So then how can I be sure that is not what God wants? — Beebert

God may certainly want this. Resisting the urge/temptation is a great thing - it is finding your own freedom. Your own freedom cannot be found except in the opposition to such urges.

2+2=5 is a logical contradiction, do you believe that, too? >:O — Heister Eggcart

If I believe whether it's possible, then maybe! X-) God doesn't have the limitations of logic, being the source of both logic and illogic.

David Bentley Hart. I quoted him. — Thorongil

Ah okay, I see, thanks for clarifying that. I agree with that quote, but obviously I don't think the actions in themselves of earthquakes, etc. are immoral. Rather they're amoral. But obviously from the POV of humans it's not right to be killed if you are innocent - and volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. take no regard of whether you're innocent or not. So it's a problem in-so-far as it's a harm, but if there is no intention behind it, it cannot be morally evil.

Is that all there is to your idea of free will? — Beebert

Yes. If you can make a choice, you have free will.

Free will=free choice? — Beebert

Free will = possibility of making a choice, yes.

well of you call ny statements a strawman, then we might as well finish this discussion by saying something obvious: All metaphysical talk is a strawman. — Beebert

Yes I will call all your statements strawmen if you keep strawmanning. That's not under my control what you say or do. But to say for example that you don't decide what you desire, and therefore you don't have free will (in the Christian sense) is a shameless strawman.

Anyway, despite having said that, there may actually be moral agents in involved. An idea I have found intriguing is that Satan and his fallen angels are behind what is labeled natural evil. See here: http://reknew.org/2008/01/satan-and-the-corruption-of-nature-seven-arguments/ — Thorongil

Thanks, that looks quite detailed, will have a look soon!

Regardless, there is still a problem here. I would refer you to the DBH quote once again. — Thorongil

DBH?

Then you should adhere to trinitarian theology, heretic. — Heister Eggcart

I do believe in the Trinity, so I'm not sure what you meant :s

— Heister Eggcart

Fail X-)

Let me guess, you also think that narcissists choose whether to lie or not, or that someone suffering from bipolar disorder can pause right before a manic episode whether or not they're going to lose their mind. Sure. Makes total sense, (Y) — Heister Eggcart

I'm not very familiar with bipolar so I won't comment. But narcissists CAN choose whether to lie or not. They have a tendency towards lying, meaning that's the first thing that comes to their minds, but that doesn't mean they cannot oppose that tendency and not act on it.

CBT and all of therapy pretty much is predicated on this metacognitive ability.

But didnt Jesus condemn not only the actions but the inclinations towards an action too? — Beebert

No. Looking (actively) after a woman with lust is an action, not just a desire or an inclination.

Critizicing free will as a concept is part of nu critique against christianity's "moral framework", Because if fails to tell the truth already there. — Beebert

That's a strawman though.

No I have not read all mystics. So? Have you? — Beebert

No, but I don't make claims about who the greatest mystic is.

I claim Eckehart to be the greatest mystic — Beebert

Have you studied all mystics? :s

In what way did Schopenhauer misunderstand Augustine? — Beebert

Many ways, you can't possibly expect from me a critique of that whole essay in a forum post. Ask me specific questions please.

But the will then isnt Free, because I cant will whatever I want to Will — Beebert

That's a strawman right there. For Christians never meant that your free will is your ability to control what desires you find yourself having, but rather your ability to control whether or not you ACT on those desires.

But he doesn't believe in the Christian God............................. — Heister Eggcart

Sure, so? If he wants to criticise the Christian God on moral matters, then he should take the moral framework that Christians hold to, not one that he has invented.

I know that bullshitting answers can take some time. I have patience, don't worry. — Heister Eggcart

Did you get high marks at school just because you had a long time to answer the questions? X-)

Yet, you still proclaim to know what he wants of us, and that Beebert and I are wrong and that you (and God) are right. — Heister Eggcart

In some regards yes, but not in all of them. With regards to morality - at least the morality we speak about - yes.

I think that we have the freedom of choice, but not the freedom to will our will. Because we cannot will our will, we cannot will our will to be, nor even to not be. Presumably only God has the authority to will one's will, which means we've, in fact, no free will in the sense that I can perfectly choose what comes of my being and my will. I don't. And in a world where only God has the authority to will will, we really are just slaves set on a path until our legs tire and we die. — Heister Eggcart

No, you don't control the general tendencies you or your mind has. But you can still choose to give in to them or resist them. For example, if you're a person who is very tormented by lust, you may not choose that, but you certainly do choose whether you give in to it or not.

even though he is the greatest of all mystics. — Beebert

:s where do you take this from?

Yes and Eckehart was thought of by many as a heretic — Beebert

He wasn't officially condemned as a heretic, some of his writings however were.

No it was no strawman Schopenhauer addressed. — Beebert

It absolutely is, because the things he addressed there are misunderstandings of actual Christian views.

Crude? Why so? Tell me more. Enlighten me, because you obviously know the truth as a Christian. — Beebert

I would if you have more specific questions. It would be hard for me to guess what you need enlightenment on, and if I were to address each and every one of S's points there, and correct the way he lays out the issues, it would take me a very long post. So specifics would be helpful.

How does earthquakes fit Into God's plan? Are they a result of the fall or just something God lets happen for some strange reason? — Beebert

Why do you suppose I should know how the earthquake fits into God's plan? :s

Berdyaev thought it was OUTSIDE of God, something God was even born of and didnt have power over. — Beebert

That depends it's not as simple as you put it out to be. Eckhart for example takes the Godhead to be a different referent than God. You overly simplify, the same way Schopenhauer does in that essay. That's why what you're saying is such a non-sequitur and so crude.

There is a reason att one of your great philosophers Berdyaev tried to come up with a solution to this immense problem by his idea of the ungrund of uncreated freedom — Beebert

:s :s :s He tried to come up with it? Don't kid yourself, Boheme, Eckhart, Pseudo-Dyonisyus etc. have already thought through that way before Berdyaev.

but you dont see the imescapable contradiction in this : Namely that God is the prime mover, the one who willed my existence without my possible approval, alone in knowing my fate already before I was Born. Seriously, use your Brain here. Dont you see the absurdity in this? — Beebert

No, I actually don't.

Didnt you read the article of Schopenhauer that addressed this problems? — Beebert

He addressed a strawman.

Why does he hide himself? — Beebert

Because He is a hidden God.

Is God the cause of the earthquake? — Beebert

No. Plate tectonics are the cause of the Earthquake.

If I throw a Stone at someone and that someone dies, then are you suggesting that the act is amoral rather than immoral because the stone is not a moral agent? — Beebert

No, because you threw the stone, and you are a moral agent. The stone can't throw itself. If it could, then yes, a stone knocking someone's head would be amoral.

?? Beebert doesn't adhere to free will. I don't believe he or anyone else is suggesting that, at the very least, Christians do not believe in free will themselves. — Heister Eggcart

And he's criticising the Christian God based on his belief that we don't have free will? :s That makes no sense, because according to the Christian God, we do have free will. So if he wants to criticise the Christian God - and not some other God - then he should take the contents of revelation as presented.

There's just enough substance in this reply for me to in turn write this reply and...nothing more, hmm...this exchange is definitely molto produttivo. — Heister Eggcart

X-) I like to keep you in suspense...

Yes, I think he does. He, as being itself, makes you be and then forces you into making the choice of whether you then want to follow him or not. If you say no, you're damned. If you say yes, all's well then, it is hoped. — Heister Eggcart

I'm not quite sure what God Himself is. The Trinity is a logical contradiction, I'd doubt that our finite human reason could comprehend God. God is unknowable and incomprehensible in Himself. Now, being separated from God is being damned - and that's no action of God's, it is what you yourself will.

But the key is that you are told that you can choose, but in the end your will won't be done as God's will is above yours. — Heister Eggcart

That's false, it will be your will, that's why God has given you free will, and you're formed in the image of God.

Natural evil has been a problem for the theist for thousands of years and has become ever more problematic with the advent of modern biology and evolutionary theory. — Thorongil

Why is it immoral for people to die in an earthquake? I'd say that's amoral, but not immoral, for to claim it is immoral would be to claim that the earthquake is a moral agent.

Ons part of Christianity says free will is basically the Most important doctrine. Another part says predestination is. — Beebert

The fact that God knows how you will use your free will does NOT mean you're condemned to a certain destiny. You still have free will and you will choose, however God is aware of what you will freely choose. This isn't to say that he controls it, or determines it in any way. He doesn't. Knowing something isn't the same with causing it to be so.

it seems like God and christianity should make itself more Clear in things. — Beebert

It is quite clear actually if you study Apostolic Tradition, use your reason and read Scripture.

He appears to be more absent than present. — Beebert

Well yeah, you're not the first to say that: "Truly, You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, Savior!" Isaiah 45:15. So this is what Christians are already aware of. Come up with something new!