Can Jesus be God if he is not all knowing?

[ding]

So you are saying that if someone put a gun to your head and ordered you to kill someone else, you would have no choice in killing them?

No, Im saying that choice and free will are different, conceptually, because there exists such a thing as coercion which alters the balance of freedom of choice in the favor of the assailant by use of a threat.

Such that you would not have a choice in killing them because you were coerced?

Thats exactly where we differ in what we consider free will.

You are making it directly akin to having a choice.

Im introducing the fact that an outside force using a threat to make you choose a certain way that theyd like, or else, is a choice but is no longer free will.

But it absolutely is free will, GT, because you could choose death.

Just because you don’t like the choices does not mean you didn’t have a choice.

You are literally arguing the definition of fatalism.

I dont care what you think, I gave my opinion and you neener and cant stop. Especially prudent, because this conversation is for folks who take the bible literally and not for ding.

And for ding to say that his opinion is that the bible isnt literal, doesnt magically erase that literalists exist

And this question was posed to the folks who believe that, literally. Not an argument for ding and not an argument if ding thinks the bible is literal or not.

Would you have a choice in not killing someone if a gun was put to your head coercing you to do so? Yes or no.

 

[G.T.]

Thats not my assumption, lots of folks actually believe in hell and eternal damnation. Calling that MY assumption is just a false assertion.

My assumption is that its fake.

That is exactly the argument you are making.

Whether you believe it or not does not matter because that is the argument you are making and the argument I am responding to.

I started this conversation by telling you it was a straw man argument.

If you are asserting that people dont believe in hell, I dont have anything left to say to that sort of dissonance. Its not an assumption, they say it out loud and theres also polls.

If you are going to discuss hell, you need to define what hell is, GT.

Hell is nothing more or less than eternal separation from God. And you get to choose that.

You opinion on what hell is is irrelevant to me.

There exists humans not named ding that believe that hell is eternal damnation and torture.

My commentary was for them.

Ypu butted in, and are proclaiming they dont exist and stating its merely an assumption of mine that they do, despite them being on video since video was invented and also answering polls that they do believe in it, all to falsely call something a strawman where that doesnt even pertain because they actually DO exist.

Cuz youre an obsessive compulsive arguer.

It absolutely is relevant to the discussion as you are arguing that the threat of hell is coercion.

I tried to shift the argument to something you do know about. Specifically a gun to your head forcing you to kill someone. I asked you if you had free will in choosing what you would do. As near as I can tell you chose to kill the poor sap and made an excuse that you didn’t have a choice. Did I get that wrong?

You are tedious.

I told you already that choice and free will are not directly synonymous to me.

That answers all of the questions in your above post as to what my opinion is. You dont need to ask several more times now that ots been made clear more than 5.

 

[ding]

That is exactly the argument you are making.

Whether you believe it or not does not matter because that is the argument you are making and the argument I am responding to.

I started this conversation by telling you it was a straw man argument.

If you are asserting that people dont believe in hell, I dont have anything left to say to that sort of dissonance. Its not an assumption, they say it out loud and theres also polls.

If you are going to discuss hell, you need to define what hell is, GT.

Hell is nothing more or less than eternal separation from God. And you get to choose that.

You opinion on what hell is is irrelevant to me.

There exists humans not named ding that believe that hell is eternal damnation and torture.

My commentary was for them.

Ypu butted in, and are proclaiming they dont exist and stating its merely an assumption of mine that they do, despite them being on video since video was invented and also answering polls that they do believe in it, all to falsely call something a strawman where that doesnt even pertain because they actually DO exist.

Cuz youre an obsessive compulsive arguer.

It absolutely is relevant to the discussion as you are arguing that the threat of hell is coercion.

I tried to shift the argument to something you do know about. Specifically a gun to your head forcing you to kill someone. I asked you if you had free will in choosing what you would do. As near as I can tell you chose to kill the poor sap and made an excuse that you didn’t have a choice. Did I get that wrong?

You are tedious.

I told you already that choice and free will are not directly synonymous to me.

That answers all of the questions in your above post as to what my opinion is. You dont need to ask several more times now that ots been made clear more than 5.

Would you kill someone if you were coerced into doing so?

 

[G.T.]

No, Im saying that choice and free will are different, conceptually, because there exists such a thing as coercion which alters the balance of freedom of choice in the favor of the assailant by use of a threat.

Such that you would not have a choice in killing them because you were coerced?

Thats exactly where we differ in what we consider free will.

You are making it directly akin to having a choice.

Im introducing the fact that an outside force using a threat to make you choose a certain way that theyd like, or else, is a choice but is no longer free will.

But it absolutely is free will, GT, because you could choose death.

Just because you don’t like the choices does not mean you didn’t have a choice.

You are literally arguing the definition of fatalism.

I dont care what you think, I gave my opinion and you neener and cant stop. Especially prudent, because this conversation is for folks who take the bible literally and not for ding.

And for ding to say that his opinion is that the bible isnt literal, doesnt magically erase that literalists exist

And this question was posed to the folks who believe that, literally. Not an argument for ding and not an argument if ding thinks the bible is literal or not.

Would you have a choice in not killing someone if a gun was put to your head coercing you to do so? Yes or no.

This question rests on the false assumption that choice and free will are directly synonymous to me, I guess the 6th time might be the charm.

 

[G.T.]

If you are asserting that people dont believe in hell, I dont have anything left to say to that sort of dissonance. Its not an assumption, they say it out loud and theres also polls.

If you are going to discuss hell, you need to define what hell is, GT.

Hell is nothing more or less than eternal separation from God. And you get to choose that.

You opinion on what hell is is irrelevant to me.

There exists humans not named ding that believe that hell is eternal damnation and torture.

My commentary was for them.

Ypu butted in, and are proclaiming they dont exist and stating its merely an assumption of mine that they do, despite them being on video since video was invented and also answering polls that they do believe in it, all to falsely call something a strawman where that doesnt even pertain because they actually DO exist.

Cuz youre an obsessive compulsive arguer.

It absolutely is relevant to the discussion as you are arguing that the threat of hell is coercion.

I tried to shift the argument to something you do know about. Specifically a gun to your head forcing you to kill someone. I asked you if you had free will in choosing what you would do. As near as I can tell you chose to kill the poor sap and made an excuse that you didn’t have a choice. Did I get that wrong?

You are tedious.

I told you already that choice and free will are not directly synonymous to me.

That answers all of the questions in your above post as to what my opinion is. You dont need to ask several more times now that ots been made clear more than 5.

Would you kill someone if you were coerced into doing so?

That depends on the level of coercion, but forcing me to choose between two options in the first place is infringing on my will.

 

[Taz]

Anyone can say the hell with your consequences, I am going to do what I want to do. That’s free will.

Anyone can say the hell with eternal damnation too.

But you can't prove eternal damnation. It's simply another fantasy of yours.

 

[G.T.]

This is why the concept of free will is subjective to begin with, in case anyone is enjoying the discussion...

It also happens to bolster my opinion on the concept, but I think that arguing personal opinions is boring. Would I consider the threat of something "eternal" as a constraint of fate...lol

 

[ding]

Such that you would not have a choice in killing them because you were coerced?

Thats exactly where we differ in what we consider free will.

You are making it directly akin to having a choice.

Im introducing the fact that an outside force using a threat to make you choose a certain way that theyd like, or else, is a choice but is no longer free will.

But it absolutely is free will, GT, because you could choose death.

Just because you don’t like the choices does not mean you didn’t have a choice.

You are literally arguing the definition of fatalism.

I dont care what you think, I gave my opinion and you neener and cant stop. Especially prudent, because this conversation is for folks who take the bible literally and not for ding.

And for ding to say that his opinion is that the bible isnt literal, doesnt magically erase that literalists exist

And this question was posed to the folks who believe that, literally. Not an argument for ding and not an argument if ding thinks the bible is literal or not.

Would you have a choice in not killing someone if a gun was put to your head coercing you to do so? Yes or no.

This question rests on the false assumption that choice and free will are directly synonymous to me, I guess the 6th time might be the charm.

That’s only because you need to make excuses for your choices.

Just because you don’t like your options doesn’t mean you didn’t make a choice.

I get your distinction. I just think it is a cop out.

 

[ding]

This is why the concept of free will is subjective to begin with, in case anyone is enjoying the discussion...

It also happens to bolster my opinion on the concept, but I think that arguing personal opinions is boring. Would I consider the threat of something "eternal" as a constraint of fate...lol

View attachment 230081

Yes, and pulling the trigger would be at your discretion.

 

[G.T.]

Thats exactly where we differ in what we consider free will.

You are making it directly akin to having a choice.

Im introducing the fact that an outside force using a threat to make you choose a certain way that theyd like, or else, is a choice but is no longer free will.

But it absolutely is free will, GT, because you could choose death.

Just because you don’t like the choices does not mean you didn’t have a choice.

You are literally arguing the definition of fatalism.

I dont care what you think, I gave my opinion and you neener and cant stop. Especially prudent, because this conversation is for folks who take the bible literally and not for ding.

And for ding to say that his opinion is that the bible isnt literal, doesnt magically erase that literalists exist

And this question was posed to the folks who believe that, literally. Not an argument for ding and not an argument if ding thinks the bible is literal or not.

Would you have a choice in not killing someone if a gun was put to your head coercing you to do so? Yes or no.

This question rests on the false assumption that choice and free will are directly synonymous to me, I guess the 6th time might be the charm.

That’s only because you need to make excuses for your choices.

Just because you don’t like your options doesn’t mean you didn’t make a choice.

I get your distinction. I just think it is a cop out.

Of course man. And Im not rlly concerned.

 

[ding]

But it absolutely is free will, GT, because you could choose death.

Just because you don’t like the choices does not mean you didn’t have a choice.

You are literally arguing the definition of fatalism.

I dont care what you think, I gave my opinion and you neener and cant stop. Especially prudent, because this conversation is for folks who take the bible literally and not for ding.

And for ding to say that his opinion is that the bible isnt literal, doesnt magically erase that literalists exist

And this question was posed to the folks who believe that, literally. Not an argument for ding and not an argument if ding thinks the bible is literal or not.

Would you have a choice in not killing someone if a gun was put to your head coercing you to do so? Yes or no.

This question rests on the false assumption that choice and free will are directly synonymous to me, I guess the 6th time might be the charm.

That’s only because you need to make excuses for your choices.

Just because you don’t like your options doesn’t mean you didn’t make a choice.

I get your distinction. I just think it is a cop out.

Of course man. And Im not rlly concerned.

Using your definition, if you were coerced into shooting someone you would be acting based upon fate.

If you chose to not shoot someone and instead chose death for yourself you would be acting under free will because you made your choice independent of your fate. That’s free will.

 

[G.T.]

I dont care what you think, I gave my opinion and you neener and cant stop. Especially prudent, because this conversation is for folks who take the bible literally and not for ding.

And for ding to say that his opinion is that the bible isnt literal, doesnt magically erase that literalists exist

And this question was posed to the folks who believe that, literally. Not an argument for ding and not an argument if ding thinks the bible is literal or not.

Would you have a choice in not killing someone if a gun was put to your head coercing you to do so? Yes or no.

This question rests on the false assumption that choice and free will are directly synonymous to me, I guess the 6th time might be the charm.

That’s only because you need to make excuses for your choices.

Just because you don’t like your options doesn’t mean you didn’t make a choice.

I get your distinction. I just think it is a cop out.

Of course man. And Im not rlly concerned.

Using your definition, if you were coerced into shooting someone you would be acting based upon fate.

If you chose to not shoot someone and instead chose death for yourself you would be acting under free will because you made your choice independent of your fate. That’s free will.

Thats your conception of it.

I call forcing someone into an unreasonable juxtaposition like that in the first place an imposition upon free will, same way I consider the literalist concept of hell and how it pertains to free will.

 

[ding]

Would you have a choice in not killing someone if a gun was put to your head coercing you to do so? Yes or no.

This question rests on the false assumption that choice and free will are directly synonymous to me, I guess the 6th time might be the charm.

That’s only because you need to make excuses for your choices.

Just because you don’t like your options doesn’t mean you didn’t make a choice.

I get your distinction. I just think it is a cop out.

Of course man. And Im not rlly concerned.

Using your definition, if you were coerced into shooting someone you would be acting based upon fate.

If you chose to not shoot someone and instead chose death for yourself you would be acting under free will because you made your choice independent of your fate. That’s free will.

Thats your conception of it.

I call forcing someone into an unreasonable juxtaposition like that in the first place an imposition upon free will, same way I consider the literalist concept of hell and how it pertains to free will.

It’s your definition.

If one makes choices without consideration of his fate it is free will, right?

So a good Christian choosing to do the right thing for the right reasons without considering how it pertains to his fate would be acting with free will, right?

 

[G.T.]

This question rests on the false assumption that choice and free will are directly synonymous to me, I guess the 6th time might be the charm.

That’s only because you need to make excuses for your choices.

Just because you don’t like your options doesn’t mean you didn’t make a choice.

I get your distinction. I just think it is a cop out.

Of course man. And Im not rlly concerned.

Using your definition, if you were coerced into shooting someone you would be acting based upon fate.

If you chose to not shoot someone and instead chose death for yourself you would be acting under free will because you made your choice independent of your fate. That’s free will.

Thats your conception of it.

I call forcing someone into an unreasonable juxtaposition like that in the first place an imposition upon free will, same way I consider the literalist concept of hell and how it pertains to free will.

It’s your definition.

If one makes choices without consideration of his fate it is free will, right?

So a good Christian choosing to do the right thing for the right reasons without considering how it pertains to his fate would be acting with free will, right?

How in the **** could one "choose" hell without "consideration" of their fate?

That doesn't even compute.

Between fates... IS the choice we are talking about. Ultimate fate. That's the choice in discussion. How in the **** does one choose their fate, accept god or go to hell, without considering their fate .....would be beyond my mere human understanding of what it means to "consider" something.
****, and to "choose" something.... while we are at it.

Being forced into the choice in the first place is what infringes on the victim's will, is my opinion.

Using threat of eternal punishment for not choosing to the assailant's liking deepens that infringement.

Im gunna call it...

double infringement.

 

[ding]

That’s only because you need to make excuses for your choices.

Just because you don’t like your options doesn’t mean you didn’t make a choice.

I get your distinction. I just think it is a cop out.

Of course man. And Im not rlly concerned.

Using your definition, if you were coerced into shooting someone you would be acting based upon fate.

If you chose to not shoot someone and instead chose death for yourself you would be acting under free will because you made your choice independent of your fate. That’s free will.

Thats your conception of it.

I call forcing someone into an unreasonable juxtaposition like that in the first place an imposition upon free will, same way I consider the literalist concept of hell and how it pertains to free will.

It’s your definition.

If one makes choices without consideration of his fate it is free will, right?

So a good Christian choosing to do the right thing for the right reasons without considering how it pertains to his fate would be acting with free will, right?

How in the **** could one "choose" hell without "consoderation" of their fate?

That doesn't even compute.

Between fates... IS the choice we are talking about. Ultimate fate. That's the choice in discussion. How in the **** does one choose their fate, accept god or go to hell, without considering their fate would be beyond my mere human understanding of what it means to :consider" something.
****, and to choose something while we are at it.

Being forced into the choice in the first place is what infringes on the victim's will, is my opinion.

Using threat of eternal punishment for not choosing to the assailant's liking deepens that infringement.

Im gunna call it...

double infringement.

I am suggesting to you that no one worries about going to hell when it comes to the choices they make. Thus negating your straw man.

I guess in your world all believers weigh going to hell with every decision they make. Sounds funny to me.

 

[ding]

I can honestly say I have never heard a sermon about eternal damnation.

I have no idea what kind of church GT attended.

 

[G.T.]

Of course man. And Im not rlly concerned.

Using your definition, if you were coerced into shooting someone you would be acting based upon fate.

If you chose to not shoot someone and instead chose death for yourself you would be acting under free will because you made your choice independent of your fate. That’s free will.

Thats your conception of it.

I call forcing someone into an unreasonable juxtaposition like that in the first place an imposition upon free will, same way I consider the literalist concept of hell and how it pertains to free will.

It’s your definition.

If one makes choices without consideration of his fate it is free will, right?

So a good Christian choosing to do the right thing for the right reasons without considering how it pertains to his fate would be acting with free will, right?

How in the **** could one "choose" hell without "consoderation" of their fate?

That doesn't even compute.

Between fates... IS the choice we are talking about. Ultimate fate. That's the choice in discussion. How in the **** does one choose their fate, accept god or go to hell, without considering their fate would be beyond my mere human understanding of what it means to :consider" something.
****, and to choose something while we are at it.

Being forced into the choice in the first place is what infringes on the victim's will, is my opinion.

Using threat of eternal punishment for not choosing to the assailant's liking deepens that infringement.

Im gunna call it...

double infringement.

I am suggesting to you that no one worries about going to hell when it comes to the choices they make. Thus negating your straw man.

I guess in your world all believers weigh going to hell with every decision they make. Sounds funny to me.

All?

"No one"

Youre the one invoking absolutes....out of your ass no less.

"No one" worries about hell in their choice making?

Thats empirically false, laughable even.

But you thinking you speak for everyone isnt shocking at all.

 

[ding]

But the fact remains as long as no one does things so they don’t go to hell, they are exercising free will.

 

[G.T.]

I can honestly say I have never heard a sermon about eternal damnation.

I have no idea what kind of church GT attended.

Thats nice. Theres scripture that talks about it, and theres also biblical literalists, meaning, "takes the words at face value."

You continue to pretend theres not, and thats just delusional since I can literally post hours long discussions of literalists vs. non...


But they dont exist.


cray

 

[ding]

And if they only behave with virtue because they are afraid of going to hell, then they are behaving without virtue.