How far reaching are God's powers?

[HappySkeptic]

It must be good to know "Truth".

It is, but rest assured that I suffered intensely before the Truth was made known to me. That's how it must be for the vast majority of us, if not all of us. So in a way it wasn't good at all...but overall it's certainly worth it.

I'm starting to think you are delusional.

People who have lived long enough to recover from teenage Jesus Camp experiences normally learn a little nuance about their religion.  They realize that the bible has contradictions, ancient story, myth.  They realize that the answers that the bible gives are often not sufficient to explain life with respect to a modern education.  They often find that they stop worrying about what their pastor says about what God allegedly thinks about their neighbors and just start living life as a human being.

The Bible only has contradictions to those who lack understanding. False "Christians" have done a great deal of damage to people through things like "teenage Jesus Camp" and the church system, which is the synagogue of Satan.

You do yourself no favors referencing modern education, however, as though it's worth a damn. Human beings have such little understanding of things like biology, geology, etc., that all they've done is tricked themselves into explaining God away with supposedly sophisticated theories. But God makes foolish the wisdom of the world.

I must've missed what sort of congregation you follow, and where you get your theological education.

As for "modern education", do you have one?  I can tell you that science works as a methodology, and that scientific theories really do make testable predictions about the world.  None of those theories requires God as a hypothesis.  You can console yourself with bible verses, but ignoring reality is evidence of delusion.

---

So, let me get this straight.  Grand Nudger is going to the Pearly Gates, and God will say "MilesAbbott81 gave you a perfect cogent explanation, but you didn't believe it.  You didn't believe it, not because it was nonsense, but because I didn't want you to believe it.  I get a kick out of this sort of thing.  Go to Hell!".

You come across as very young and naive in your faith.

Did I ever say that? Grand Nudger has no interest in my explanations because he has no interest in God. His interest lies only in resisting God, and that is why he won't, or rather can't, understand me. He is a vessel of dishonor, destined for destruction until the Lord decides he has suffered enough. That may happen in this world...it may also not happen until the next. That is up to God.

You may not realize this, but some people here know a shit-ton about theology and bible.  I was a Christian for many years, and I read and studied not only the full bible, but the associated theologies.  Nothing you have said is new to me, though you are not on the mainstream path. 

You aren't convincing anyone here because your arguments don't actually explain anything.  We've heard them packaged in various forms for a long time.

I think you are just a young zealot, and you have a lot of learning and growing-up to do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, that much has been quite clear to me. How could someone who is happy with their lot be interested in salvation? Only once misery has made its indelible mark will you become interested.

And I know your question, and you've heard my answer. I think we're done here.

I haven't heard your answer, though - because you've never even attempted to offer one.  I understand that you very much want to tell me about gods and about salvation, and you think that if I were miserable, or just not so happy, that I would be more interested.

Maybe, but that day isn't today.  Today I'm wondering how moral incompetents can be morally responsible.  You have been very insistent that you believe both things to be true.  That we are both incompetent, and responsible.  You must have worked that out in your head some way, and I would very much like to understand how.

[MilesAbbott81]

I'm starting to think you are delusional.

Is this supposed to surprise me?

I must've missed what sort of congregation you follow, and where you get your theological education.

Not sure if you are saying theological education is important, but I certainly don't have one and I'm unaware of any saints who received formal training. Seminary and such are institutions of men, which are inherently corrupt. I'm part of no congregation at the moment. But to answer your question, if you were asking it, my education comes from the Lord, but also http://www.thepathoftruth.com.

As for "modern education", do you have one?  I can tell you that science works as a methodology, and that scientific theories really do make testable predictions about the world.  None of those theories requires God as a hypothesis.  You can console yourself with bible verses, but ignoring reality is evidence of delusion.

Well, I have a college degree, but it's in English and therefore not very useful.

I agree with you on everything you said about science, though all theories not taking God into account are flawed and probably total garbage (evolution, for example).

I don't believe I've ever ignored evidence. I think if you look at places like the Christian Research Institute, you'll find many explanations that plausibly invalidate many popular theories.

The problem with science is the arrogance of it. It's become a man-made religion, and is worshiped instead of treated with healthy skepticism. That at the least should be the case, but science has also been weaponized against the religious because it is so highly esteemed. And that which is highly esteemed by men is abomination to God (Luke 16:15).

You may not realize this, but some people here know a shit-ton about theology and bible.  I was a Christian for many years, and I read and studied not only the full bible, but the associated theologies.  Nothing you have said is new to me, though you are not on the mainstream path. 

I'm not impressed by credentials. Frankly most of the people on here, from what I've read, know essentially nothing about the Bible. A lot of arrogance, but no substance, but people get away with it because those "Christians" on here are probably almost as ignorant themselves.

You've heard my explanation of the purpose of evil before? Because it's certainly not common at all in nominal Christendom. So that surprises me, but okay. The truth is spoken everywhere, in bits and pieces, by many different sources, even mostly illegitimate sources can spread some truth. The real question is whether or not they have the whole truth, which I do, as far as I know.

You aren't convincing anyone here because they don't actually explain anything.  We've heard them packaged in various forms for a long time.

I think you are just a young zealot, and you have a lot of learning and growing-up to do.

Who are you to say I'm not convincing anyone? And who said I'm here to convince anyone? While that would be nice, I generally don't expect to. That doesn't mean my speaking the truth is pointless or unnecessary.

I'm also 39 years old and while I've only been walking with the Lord for about six years, it's not a matter of time, but the quality of instruction.

[HappySkeptic]

Today I'm wondering how moral incompetents can be morally responsible.  You have been very insistent that you believe both things to be true.  That we are both incompetent, and responsible.  You must have worked that out in your head some way, and I would very much like to understand how.

He seems to follow Calvinist teaching.  It has always made no sense, but here it is -- people are evil because its their nature, and they deserve punishment for it, because they are evil.  God can choose to enlighten the elect by grace to become moral agents and choose to do good.  Everyone else is done for.

So, the non-elect are not moral agents.  They are bound by evil.  It doesn't matter if it wasn't their choice, their punishment is "just" because of their evil nature.  Only believers can choose to do good (and that belief is a gift from God - also not their choice).

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus christ, it might be quicker to list out the ridiculous shit that you don't believe.

[MilesAbbott81]

He seems to follow Calvinist teaching.  It has always made no sense, but here it is -- people are evil because its their nature, and they deserve punishment for it, because they are evil.  God can choose to enlighten the elect by grace to become moral agents and choose to do good.  Everyone else is done for.

So, the non-elect are not moral agents.  They are bound by evil.  It doesn't matter if it wasn't their choice, their punishment is "just" because of their evil nature.  Only believers can choose to do good.

I don't know what Calvinist teaching is, but I believe he believed in eternal damnation, which is an absurd pagan doctrine. I believe in universal salvation.

It seems you've not been reading this thread at all, actually. Only believers can choose to do good? I specifically said no one can do good of their own accord. Sinners can also do good, by the grace of God. Perhaps you should read and attempt to understand before making judgments.

[The Grand Nudger]

-which is pretty much where I'm hoping to get with our christian friend, regardless of his sub-cult.  If we're not moral agents, then how do we envision our moral responsibilities?

[HappySkeptic]

I don't know what Calvinist teaching is, but I believe he believed in eternal damnation, which is an absurd pagan doctrine. I believe in universal salvation.

It seems you've not been reading this thread at all, actually. Only believers can choose to do good? I specifically said no one can do good of their own accord. Sinners can also do good, by the grace of God. Perhaps you should read and attempt to understand before making judgments.

So you are not a Calvinist, but I see little difference to the moral argument.

Grace is an act of God.  It is God's choice, not a person's.  If God chooses to harden GrandNudger's heart, then he has no say over the matter.

You either say that good choices are discernible by all, and therefore people are moral agents.   Or you say that God chooses to enlighten the minds of some as to what "good" is, because we can't know by ourselves, and therefore it is God's choice as to who gets enlightened and to what.  In that case we are not true moral agents.

Presumably God has hardened my heart, and I am cut off from the "Truth".  Not my choice.

[MilesAbbott81]

-which is pretty much where I'm hoping to get with our christian friend, regardless of his sub-cult.  If we're not moral agents, then how do we envision our moral responsibilities?

Well, I'll answer you once again for Happy Skeptic's sake.

Not having a choice doesn't absolve guilt. God takes that into account, but we still commit the evil acts even though we know better, and how does one learn to choose good without suffering the consequences of not choosing to do good?

It's a process of learning, and that's why we have to suffer for our choices. I really don't see this as complicated. It's not easy to accept, but it's not complicated.

---

So you are not a Calvinist, but I see little difference to the moral argument.

Grace is an act of God.  It is God's choice, not a person's.  If God chooses to harden GrandNudger's heart, then he has no say over the matter.

You either say that good choices are discernible by all, and therefore people are moral agents.   Or you say that God chooses to enlighten the minds of some as to what "good" is, because we can't know by ourselves, and therefore it is God's choice as to who gets enlightened and to what.  In that case we are not true moral agents.

Presumably God has hardened my heart, and I am cut off from the "Truth".  Not my choice.

Good choices are mostly discernable by all. In fact, I'd say that when one truly can't discern good choices from evil ones, God doesn't hold us to account for those, or at least He shows much mercy. We can clearly discern that stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, etc., because God gave us consciences.

What we can't do is choose to obey our conscience...that occurs only by God's grace.

[The Grand Nudger]

-which is pretty much where I'm hoping to get with our christian friend, regardless of his sub-cult.  If we're not moral agents, then how do we envision our moral responsibilities?

Well, I'll answer you once again for Happy Skeptic's sake.

Not having a choice doesn't absolve guilt. God takes that into account, but we still commit the evil acts even though we know better, and how does one learn to choose good without suffering the consequences of not choosing to do good?

It's a process of learning, and that's why we have to suffer for our choices. I really don't see this as complicated. It's not easy to accept, but it's not complicated.

So you've said, but you've yet to explain how, which is what I keep asking over and over only to have you babble more about a god.  If moral responsibility requires a moral agent with a moral choice, how could moral responsibility be maintained in the absence of that moral choice?

Are you using some other requirements for moral responsibility ..and, if so, what are those?

Good choices are mostly discernable by all. In fact, I'd say that when one truly can't discern good choices from evil ones, God doesn't hold us to account for those, or at least He shows much mercy. We can clearly discern that stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, etc., because God gave us consciences.

What we can't do is choose to obey our conscience...that occurs only by God's grace.

Is that an accurate description of your own experience?