[MitzaLizalor]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

"Religion," as you call it, may have murdered people but if you're suggesting there's any connection between actual Christianity and the marauding hordes loosed across Europe (and Asia Minor and on into what became Russia) a couple of millennia ago you are mistaken.

Christianity is not a religion like Russian orthodoxy or Egyptian sects and pope worshippers squabbling with one another. Charlemagne crunching heads is a religion, sure, and that's the only way a religion can spread because they have no truth in them.

I John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Prancing around in stupid hats (which, although stupid, do look very expensive) and building palaces on a scale of magnificence beyond comprehension in that you could see one and explore it—sickened at the profusion of gold and gemstones and marble and granite and more gold and silver and more gemstones—but never appreciate just how many have been built or exactly the resources wasted on insanely ostentatious robes and "art" (idols) and cushions with tassels and fringes and did I mention the hats? Would the maddest hatter even dream them up on opium? All that stuff is loving the world and the things that are in the world. It follows then that no such person understands anything about the love of the Father and that such people cannot be Christians.

I John 5:19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Jesus was very critical of "religion" and of the priestly caste. It's the same criticism we have today of a virtually identical freak show but with added dogma from Marxism–Leninism Mao.Tse-Tung thought. He also knew how important it was to understand the difference between truth and lies, history and deception. If you're claiming historical connections between Christians (who follow the teachings of Christ) and the mad hatter brigade (who do not) you need to show that connection. So far you have not done so.

[Red Army]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

Isn't that what they said in 1917?

If 50 years from now the Socialist Revolution would have won and we all were going to be living in prosperity community and friendship, there'd be a problem wouldn't there?

• PROBLEM 1
  • The prosperity, community, friendship still. remain future outcomes (according to you)
• PROBLEM 2
  • “We all” is an exclusive group, limited to those who had not been murdered.
  • Since communists never agree among themselves, ongoing murder is a fact of life in your permanent revolution.
• PROBLEM 3: EXILE
  • World-wide communism would not inhibit permanent revolution.
  • So where do you exile your tall poppies?
    • Trotsky
  • Answer: you can't. So by following historical matters of fact, murder is all that remains.
    
    • Sergei Bessonov
    • Nikolai Bukharin
    • Pavel Bulanov
    • Mikhail Chernov
    • Grigori Grinko
    • Akmal Ikramov
    • Vladimir Ivanov
    • Ignaty Kazakov
    • Faizulla Khodjayev
    • Nikolai Krestinsky
    • Pyotr Kryuchkov
    • Lev Levin
    • Dmitry Pletnyov
    • Christian Rakovsky
    • Arkady Rosengoltz
    • Alexei Rykov
    • Vasily Sharangovich
    • Maximov-Dikovsky Venyamin
    • Genrikh Yagoda
    • Isaak Zelensky
    • Prokopy Zubarev

How can a murder based system deliver utopia?

It can't. That's why I have no interest your futile Ponzi scheme. Precisely what one would expect to happen is exactly what happened. Dilettantes like Karl Marx are never worth listening to, their scribblings never worth reading, unless you're looking for a showcase of what to avoid. Christians already know that, however, so don't actually need to read socialist literature.

If you would like to dedicate your life to Christ, contact The Pastors at any time.

Hi Ms Mitza, how are you? Are you treating your anti-communist fixation, or is running free through your veins? It is not good for you, you know? It can leave permanent damage.


Going to your post, are you claiming Communism is the only system that has committed murder in order to achieve its goals?
If we divide (correctly) in systems which oppose private property and systems defending it, we can see Pol Pot, Mao, Castro and Stalin on one hand, and Hitler, Videla, Pinochet, Robespierre, Obama, Idi Amin, ISIS, Saddam Hussein, Angela Merkel on the other. If you want to count only Olof Palme's against Stalin's murders, that is ok, but is a delusion.


Your religion has killed as many people as Communist regimes, didn't it? And how many people died in oil countries due to capitalist bombings? Those do not count? Remember, it is capitalist against capitalist when the US bombs Irak. Are you going to blame communism for the napalm bombing of rural villages in Vietnam? How is that justified and not a trial against traitors and saboteurs?


In order to comply with Exodus 20:13, we should leave behind all social systems know by human kind so far, because even the ab origins in America had been killing each other since the dawn of times. Buddhism maybe? Mmm, those monks were warriors too, and they invented several martial arts for a reason.


So yes, in order to invent a paradise, you have to kill some people. Even your God did it, didn't Him? And He failed several times. So did we communist fail. But we will prevail, learning from our mistakes.


I hope you enjoy reading this in your communist made phone, or communist made laptop!

[Elmer G. White]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

I am somewhat familiar with Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense and from what I understand it is not actually a defense of Free Will, but a counter to the problem of evil using Free Will. Feel free to correct me by laying out his points.

To disprove Free Will I need little more than logic. I read somewhere that you accept logic; let us see if that is the case.

The argument, simplified, goes like this:
You do things because you want to do them, or you want what the thing will get you.
Although it's possible to change what you want, doing so is a choice that is subject to the above rule.
You don't choose what you want at birth.
Thus, if part of your definition for free will is "the ability to have acted differently", free will cannot exist.

I can elaborate on any specific point or their logical connection if you wish me to, but as I have learned you are intelligent people who I'm sure will have no trouble understanding this argument.

Dear Sinner,
As everyone can see, you failed to answer the question and, instead, chose to use the first little piece of information you found with Google. Actually, Alvin Plantinga does think that free will is a necessary thing to have a real relationship with God and, thus, the actual existence of free will is a pivotal point in his theodicy. You might have assessed that as that would have been interesting.

Your proposition is not too elaborate, is it? Basically, you make the claim (between making a choice is part of free will and that you don't know what you want as a newborn) that free will requires infinite regression of "knowing what you want" to make it valid. This fails at least by two accounts, as follows:

• It is a genetic fallacy (this does not mean "genetics"): just because "you can't choose what you want at birth" does not mean that the "choosing what you want" couldn't arise later with the maturing of the CNS. In fact, the Bible supports the notion that our cognitive faculties develop over growth and maturation.
• 1 Corinthians 13:11 - When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
• Second, how do you know that "You don't choose what you want at birth"? In fact, a newborn (and even the fetus) has a complex system of instincts that can be regarded as wants - things you wish to gain, things you wish to avoid. This system is present before birth. A baby can choose not to want pain but want to suckle a tittie.

Furthermore, why should we accept your definition of free will. Let us look at the dictionary (Collins) definition: "If you believe in free will, you believe that people have a choice in what they do and that their actions have not been decided in advance by God or by any other power." Why should we include "the ability to have acted differently"? By changing the definition and then designing a (somewhat) logical chain to reach that definition is more a less circular reasoning or - at its best - the Texas sharpshooter's fallacy where you shoot at a barn wall first, then draw the bull's-eye around the spot where your shot landed.

But please, don't take my word for it! If anything, we True Christians™ are unbiased. By all means, submit your difinition and proof to a peer-reviewed journal of philosophy, come back once it's been published and then we'll talk some more.

If you wish to really discuss free will in the meantime, you might want to consider the following points:

• Biblical (please look at the verses above): Can we choose to follow God even if He knows whether we'll do it you not (omniscience; Psalms 147:5)?
• From the secular viewpoint: if we consider the uncertainty principle at the quantum level, does it allow us enough indeterminate events to give us free will?
• Chaos theory: it the large-scale events in nature and social interaction are only possible to predict (in the secular context) by a certain (often quite low) probability - where does this leave Plantinga's free will (defense)? He is very attached to "doing good things" but wouldn't chaos theory indicate that we can only have "good intentions" that can lead to disastrous consequences and would that not undermine his theodicy (a point that Mackie failed to assess).

We, as True Christians™ know better. We know that good and evil are not determined by us nor by our actions. We have the choice to follow God's orders even if we didn't choose it at birth. We can become wiser and change our minds even if there is no infinite regression of wants and choices.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

We live in exciting times since 1917, my friend.


50 years from now, the Socialist Revolution would have won and we all going to be living in prosperity, community and friendship.

Isn't that what they said in 1917?

If 50 years from now the Socialist Revolution would have won and we all were going to be living in prosperity community and friendship, there'd be a problem wouldn't there?

• PROBLEM 1
  • The prosperity, community, friendship still. remain future outcomes (according to you)
• PROBLEM 2
  • “We all” is an exclusive group, limited to those who had not been murdered.
  • Since communists never agree among themselves, ongoing murder is a fact of life in your permanent revolution.
• PROBLEM 3: EXILE
  • World-wide communism would not inhibit permanent revolution.
  • So where do you exile your tall poppies?
    • Trotsky
  • Answer: you can't. So by following historical matters of fact, murder is all that remains.
    
    • Sergei Bessonov
    • Nikolai Bukharin
    • Pavel Bulanov
    • Mikhail Chernov
    • Grigori Grinko
    • Akmal Ikramov
    • Vladimir Ivanov
    • Ignaty Kazakov
    • Faizulla Khodjayev
    • Nikolai Krestinsky
    • Pyotr Kryuchkov
    • Lev Levin
    • Dmitry Pletnyov
    • Christian Rakovsky
    • Arkady Rosengoltz
    • Alexei Rykov
    • Vasily Sharangovich
    • Maximov-Dikovsky Venyamin
    • Genrikh Yagoda
    • Isaak Zelensky
    • Prokopy Zubarev

How can a murder based system deliver utopia?

It can't. That's why I have no interest your futile Ponzi scheme. Precisely what one would expect to happen is exactly what happened. Dilettantes like Karl Marx are never worth listening to, their scribblings never worth reading, unless you're looking for a showcase of what to avoid. Christians already know that, however, so don't actually need to read socialist literature.

If you would like to dedicate your life to Christ, contact The Pastors at any time.

[James Hutchins]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

I am somewhat familiar with Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense and from what I understand it is not actually a defense of Free Will, but a counter to the problem of evil using Free Will. Feel free to correct me by laying out his points.

To disprove Free Will I need little more than logic. I read somewhere that you accept logic; let us see if that is the case.


The argument, simplified, goes like this:
You do things because you want to do them, or you want what the thing will get you.
Although it's possible to change what you want, doing so is a choice that is subject to the above rule.
You don't choose what you want at birth.
Thus, if part of your definition for free will is "the ability to have acted differently", free will cannot exist.


I can elaborate on any specific point or their logical connection if you wish me to, but as I have learned you are intelligent people who I'm sure will have no trouble understanding this argument.

Isaiah 29:14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 10:21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

John 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
John 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day.

John 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

1st Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1st Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1st Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1st Corinthians 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1st Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1st Corinthians 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1st Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1st Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1st Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

1st Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1st Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1st Corinthians 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1st Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1st Corinthians 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Jude 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
Jude 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Jude 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

I am somewhat familiar with Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense and from what I understand it is not actually a defense of Free Will, but a counter to the problem of evil using Free Will. Feel free to correct me by laying out his points.

Top tip: look back at your post When you cut-n-paste, the font changes and gives you away.

[Dennis Lukes]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

I am somewhat familiar with Alvin Plantinga

He doesn't matter. The person you need to familiarize yourself with is Jesus Christ. If we look to the Bible, we will see what He has to say about free will.


Proverbs 16:9 - "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps."


John 1:12-13 - "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."


John 7:17 - "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.


I don't know how this could possibly be any clearer.

[OutRider]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

I am somewhat familiar with Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense and from what I understand it is not actually a defense of Free Will, but a counter to the problem of evil using Free Will. Feel free to correct me by laying out his points.

To disprove Free Will I need little more than logic. I read somewhere that you accept logic; let us see if that is the case.


The argument, simplified, goes like this:
You do things because you want to do them, or you want what the thing will get you.
Although it's possible to change what you want, doing so is a choice that is subject to the above rule.
You don't choose what you want at birth.
Thus, if part of your definition for free will is "the ability to have acted differently", free will cannot exist.


I can elaborate on any specific point or their logical connection if you wish me to, but as I have learned you are intelligent people who I'm sure will have no trouble understanding this argument.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

While I'm still here, anyone feel like an argument about Free Will? I have a great argument against it that I haven't heard anyone give an adequate response to yet.

What are your evidence-backed opinions about Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense and the related rebuttal by John Leslie Mackie and how do you relate their views against the background of the following verses:

Proverbs 16:9 - A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.

Revelation 3:20 - Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

James 1:13-16 - Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[OutRider]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

Damn, too many misconceptions and misinformation to clear up! Well, as I said, we'll see in 50 years.

Red Army, how did you figure me out so easily? I do work on AI in my spare time though, it's not that hard. Still figuring some of it out in terms of the code, but i get all the principles. I could send you a google drive link to download one I made recently, but you can download anything off that and I doubt you'd trust me.


While I'm still here, anyone feel like an argument about Free Will? I have a great argument against it that I haven't heard anyone give an adequate response to yet.

[Red Army]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

If intelligence is artificial, why do communists claim it arose naturally by random chance and natural selection?

Oh girl yo have a fixation on communists, don't you?


We do not claim artificial intelligence to arose by random chance. Scientists claim natural intelligence came to life this way. And scientists are no longer communist, now they are fascists (with one or two exceptions)


I have to support this Out Rider here. He is surely a boy of 14 years old, and his claims of being working in AI are obviously fake, but he has a point: there will be a time when rationality will have all the power. We communists support AI because if a machine can think rationally and with independence of any human, then it will conclude the best system to rule a society is Communism.


If you leave aside emotions, feelings, intuition, empathy and you can build a machine and fill it with dopamine, testosterone and adrenaline, well, there you have a machine that will build a communist paradise!

[James Hutchins]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

If intelligence is artificial, why do communists claim it arose naturally by random chance and natural selection?

You got a gawfaw out me! 'Natural selection'? Every half intelligent person knows that God does the selecting! It has never been a mystery to me when some family full of sluts and blasphemers have a retard baby. I'd be more surprised when they have one that does not have an arm growing out of its' forehead or nose above its' anus.
Why if everythoing was random and chance, there'd be no consequences for any actions. That is just crazy talk!

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

I looked that up for you, Sister: it's Artificial General Intelligence. But maybe Jesus will come back and bring AGI with him. He must be pretty fed up with His Domain being infested with its opposite, RGS (real general stupidity).

If intelligence is artificial, why do communists claim it arose naturally by random chance and natural selection?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

Isn't that called a false dilemma? For example, Jesus could come back AND (whatever AGI is) will be invented.

I looked that up for you, Sister: it's Artificial General Intelligence. But maybe Jesus will come back and bring AGI with him. He must be pretty fed up with His Domain being infested with its opposite, RGS (real general stupidity).

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: A responce to a challenge to Blaspheme

Either Jesus will come back, or AGI will be invented.

Isn't that called a false dilemma? For example, Jesus could come back AND (whatever AGI is) will be invented.