Can an atheist get into Heaven

[Justincblount 4]

RonD1120

***************

I'd also like Ron to explain where the extra soul goes when a human Chimera is formed from fraternal twin embryos in the womb.

But I doubt they will.

How about this?

The battle for the soul is in the mind, a Christian concept. If two bodies are joined together with two separate personalities then there are two minds. Each has free will to make choices on their own and be held accountable as individuals.

If two bodies are joined together with one mind then the choices are singularly individual.

Keeping in mind that sin is mostly attitude not behvior.

Are you saying that when separate each embryo has a soul but when joined as a Chimera the souls also join to become one?

I am saying count the number of minds and that equals the number of souls. This is just conjecture to some degree on my part. I have counseled people with multi-faceted personalities and some were diagnosed Multiple Personality Disorder. I have never met nor counseled a chimera as far as I know.

Wait a sec... are you saying people with MPD have multiple souls? So did they only have one soul up until the traumatic experience that made them disassociate? Or were all those souls lying dormant? You've 'counseled people' but it sounds like you have zero understanding of the disorder.

I was referring to minds not personalities. Those Dx w/MPD still have only one mind. It is fragmented.

When I was still in the psych field, mid-'90s, MPD was not accepted as a valid Dx by many professionals.

Ok, I misunderstood. Well, I can't disprove the soul, so I won't bother.

[jakee 1,489]

jaybird18c

Quote

Just a standard everyday preponderance will suffice. You know, like the one you referenced previously.

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

You do know that question is the wrong way around, right? The number of ways an omnipotent god could manifest itself into the world is infinite. The answers to your question are limited only by the depths of the respondant's imagination, yet it means nothing if any of those individual possibilities haven't occurred.

On the other hand, since you stated that the preponderance of evidence is with you, then you must have some specifics already in mind, and it should be very easy to list some examples.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JoeWeber 2,720]

jaybird18c

Quote

Just a standard everyday preponderance will suffice. You know, like the one you referenced previously.

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

Romans 3?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

jaybird18c

Quote

Well, yet again, please make up your mind.

"Preponderance of Evidence" means just that. ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Not "judged as you would judge a literary work".

Not "the Bible is true because it says it is."

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

I don't know. How about actual facts?

You are the one who made the claim that there is a preponderance of evidence that God exists.

Do you know the definition for that term?

Quote

...which shows that the fact to be proven is more probable than not;

You made the claim, you back it up.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jaybird18c 24]

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

[gowlerk 2,191]

jaybird18c

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

Making arguments based on bible quotations is like erecting a building on a sand bar. Both are acts of faith with no real foundation.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jcd11235 0]

RonD1120

This is just conjecture to some degree on my part.

You're kidding!

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[JoeWeber 2,720]

jaybird18c

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

jaybird18c wrote:
Man was created in the image of God. That means we were created to be like him in that we have the ability to share many of his attributes (communicable attributes). The “fruits of the spirit” would be an example. They include but aren’t limited to Joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. On the other hand, there are attributes which are his alone (incommunicable attributes). An example of these would be omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence. There are many more. I quoted Psalm 50:21. It means that although God has demonstrated much patience allowing time to repent, his patience is not without limit and justice will be done. He is NOT like fallen man with indifference to sin.

As ever, you don't answer the questions posed. Of course you believe that stuff. But how do you know? To be credible why not precede your statements with: I believe or my guess is or something similar?

To which you replied:

First - How do I know?
1. Inner witness of the Holy Spirit.
2. Preponderance of the evidence.

In fairness, it was you opened the door to questioning the existence of God. You did so by directly claiming certain attributes he has and we do not. Your reference to scripture was limited to stating: "I quoted Psalm 50:21."

So you really stepped on your ding a ling when you claimed to know what you were claiming was true because of a preponderance of evidence.

Jaybird, for dancing backwards and in circles you put Ginger Rogers to shame.

[jaybird18c 24]

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

[billvon 2,991]

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

And your one warning.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

billvon

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

And your one warning.

No worries Bill, I can take that lame shit and more. Jaybird, your discourse is like listening to Sunday school. I get it that you are used to shutting things down when it doesn't go your way. But you can not expect the same courtesy in a public forum. Here your shit stinks.

[theplummeter 15]

jaybird18c

Quote

Just a standard everyday preponderance will suffice. You know, like the one you referenced previously.

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

I don’t know specifically. If your god existed and manifested in reality he could and would know and be capable of providing it. Is he non existant or does he not care if I fail the credulity test and face eternal torment? If he is truly all knowing did he know he would be burning me when he formed my soul in the womb?

Why make the only thing that matters in life a test in belief that the overwhelming majority of people on Earth will fail and only give a hint of easily disproven “evidence” in languages that almost all people will never speak, read, or write? It certainly doesn’t meet the definition of omnibenevolent that I use.

[jcd11235 0]

theplummeter

If he is truly all knowing did he know he would be burning me when he formed my soul in the womb?

An omniscient creator and a creation with free will must be mutually exclusive. Free will implies an unknowable future, even by god.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jaybird18c 24]

"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

[jakee 1,489]

jaybird18c

"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.]

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.

Quote

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."

See, that lady gets it. You realise you just posted two contradictory sources, right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jcd11235 0]

jaybird18c

"Foreknowledge must not be confused with foreordination …

Try again when you can provide a logical argument.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Bob_Church 7]

At the risk of again being accused of using the lowest of the low I'd like to ask about the definition of predestination and preordination. Does it really mean that the thing that is predestined to happen must happen? If I'm at your home and say "well, I'm going to drive home now" I am predestined to drive my car to my house. But of course that doesn't mean that it will definitely happen. But when I hear these terms in Biblical context it's taken that way.
Is there a reason to assume that is predestined is inevitable?

[jaybird18c 24]

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

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

It's from the same book. Strong's "Systematic Theology" is cited within Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination."

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.

Quote

Anyway, Boettner is a man, not a woman. There's nothing illogical about it.

There's nothing illogical about calling a guy Loraine? I beg to differ! Bet he was never bullied at school...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jaybird18c 24]

jakee

***"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.]

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.

Quote

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."

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.

[jaybird18c 24]

jakee

Quote

It's from the same book. Strong's "Systematic Theology" is cited within Boettner's "Reformed Doctrine of Predestination."

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.

Quote

Anyway, Boettner is a man, not a woman. There's nothing illogical about it.

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.

[jakee 1,489]

jaybird18c

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.

And while the passage that Boettner cites disagrees with jcd, the passage that Boettner writes agrees with him.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

I have no idea how to dumb the concept down for you any further.

You think the problem with your arguments are that they're not dumb enough?

That's pretty special, bro

Quote

And his name is an old fashioned one.

Yeah exactly, it's an old fashioned girls name.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jaybird18c 24]

jakee

Quote

I have no idea how to dumb the concept down for you any further.

You think the problem with your arguments are that they're not dumb enough?

That's pretty special, bro

Quote

And his name is an old fashioned one.

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

[jakee 1,489]

jaybird18c

Educate yourself and broaden your horizons.

http://www.name-doctor.com/name-loraine-meaning-of-loraine-11903.html

You see how on that page it specifically lists the masculine variants Lothar and Lotar? That's because all the 'Loraine' homophones are feminine names. In every language.

Educate yourself here. You only need to read the first two lines. Honestly, I can't make this any simpler for you. You'll have to make more of an effort to keep up.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?