Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Re: Jason and the Whales

70 views
Skip to first unread message

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 2:23:55 AM3/22/12
to
On Mar 21, 11:36 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <dfritzin-685468.07112721032...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <Jason-2003122320150...@67-150-126-219.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > In article <dfritzin-C3A30B.18454920032...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <Jason-2003121257460...@67-150-120-21.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > >  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <fc79cbc3-75f8-4aad-b2c5-99bd9aaa0...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 20, 12:05=A0pm, tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 20, 3:44=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > In article
>
> <f16a08c4-1904-4291-835e-77d9954d6...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on what you mean by "all knowing".
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The word "knowing" means "in possession of knowledge"
> > > and pre=
> > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with "all" the meaning becomes "in possession of all
> > > knowledg=
> > > > > > e". Wh=3D
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > else could "all knowing" mean?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > God has the freewill that is needed to focus on anything
> > > that w=
> > > > > > e want=3D
> > > > > > > > > s to
> > > > > > > > > > > > focus on each day. I don't place God in a box. God can
> > > know wha=
> > > > > > tever =3D
> > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > chooses to know each day.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > You asked me what I meant by all knowing, I've given you
> > > my answe=
> > > > > > r.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yet you don't address it, and claim you don't out your god
> > > in a b=
> > > > > > ox.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > But straight away you limit your god.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > That is putting your god in a box Jason.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > And by doing so you are effectively saying your god is
> not all
> > > > > > > > > > > knowing.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because you want the bad guys to have free will.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because you want to absolve your god from any
> > > responsibility=
> > > > > >  for
> > > > > > > > > > > the bad guys actions.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Why do you do that Jason?
>
> > > > > > > > > > I disagree--God has vast knowledge and can make use of that
> > > knowled=
> > > > > > ge to
> > > > > > > > > > solve various problems. I don't place God in a box.
>
> > > > > > > > > Let's see now.
>
> > > > > > > > > Recently you said your god is omniscient, that Jason means you
> > > > > > > > > acknowledge your god is all knowing.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yet here you are putting your god in a box by saying your god
> > > only ha=
> > > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > vast knowledge.
>
> > > > > > > > > Why do you limit your god Jason?
>
> > > > > > > > OK--
> > > > > > > > God has VAST knowledge. I don't recall stating that God ONLY has
> > > vast k=
> > > > > > nowledge.
>
> > > > > > > VAST knowledge is a totally different thing than being ALL knowing.
>
> > > > > > I've tried to tell him that already.
>
> > > > > > VAST is not the same as ALL.
>
> > > > > > VAST limits his god's capacity.
>
> > > > > > Ergo he puts his god in a box.
>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > a.a. #2273
>
> > > > > OK--ALL KNOWLEDGE
>
> > > > Then, nobody has free will. If God is all knowing, he knows everything
> > > > you will do. Therefore, you have to do what he knows you will do, and
> > > > you have no free will.
>
> > > > Oh yes, where did the water go?
>
> > > Yes, God knows everything. However, I continue to believe that God can
> > > take days off and meditate on those days off. Evidence: Jesus done it on a
> > > regular basis. Jesus once said--"when you have seen me, you have seen the
> > > father". Jesus learned how to meditate from watching his father meditate.
>
> > Actually, it has been proven that the word meditate is not anywhere in
> > the Bible.
>
> > The fact is, you cannot have an omniscient being and have people with
> > free will The two concepts are mutually exclusive. If an omniscient
> > being exists, s/he can't "take a day off", since that being just knows
> > everything, including what you will do at any given point in  your life.
> > Therefore, if an omniscient being exists, there cannot be free will.
>
> I heard a famous preacher discussing this subject. I agree with his point
> of view. He said something like this about Adam and Eve.
>
> Pastor Chuck Smith said that God knew the actions Adam and Eve would be
> taking in the future related to eating fruit obtained from the forbitten
> tree.
>
> However, it did not mean that God played any role in regard to causing
> them to take those actions. Those actions they took in regard to eating
> that forbidden fruit were entirely based on free will. God did not
> influence them to take those actions.
>
> I will apply what Chuck Smith said to you.
>
> God knows what you will be doing the rest of your life. However, God will
> not have any influence on what you will be doing the rest of your life.
> You can do anything that you want to do. God will not interfere. You have
> free will.

Jason try and open your mind to the truth.

You've accepted that your god is all knowing.

So think about what this actually means.

Your god knows everything you are going to say, think and do in your
entire life.

Right?

So nothing you "choose" to do can come about by free will.

Got it?

Jason

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 2:42:56 AM3/22/12
to
In article
<39a1cc07-1538-459f...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, Devils
Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 21, 11:36=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article <dfritzin-685468.07112721032...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <Jason-2003122320150...@67-150-126-219.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > =A0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > In article <dfritzin-C3A30B.18454920032...@news.eternal-september.org=
> >,
> > > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <Jason-2003121257460...@67-150-120-21.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > =A0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <fc79cbc3-75f8-4aad-b2c5-99bd9aaa0...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> > > > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Mar 20, 12:05=3DA0pm, tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot.com> =
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 3:44=3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > In article
> >
> > <f16a08c4-1904-4291-835e-77d9954d6...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on what you mean by "all knowing".
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word "knowing" means "in possession of knowle=
> dge"
> > > > and pre=3D
> > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with "all" the meaning becomes "in possession of =
> all
> > > > knowledg=3D
> > > > > > > e". Wh=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > else could "all knowing" mean?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > God has the freewill that is needed to focus on any=
> thing
> > > > that w=3D
> > > > > > > e want=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > s to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > focus on each day. I don't place God in a box. God =
> can
> > > > know wha=3D
> > > > > > > tever =3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > chooses to know each day.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You asked me what I meant by all knowing, I've given =
> you
> > > > my answe=3D
> > > > > > > r.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yet you don't address it, and claim you don't out you=
> r god
> > > > in a b=3D
> > > > > > > ox.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But straight away you limit your god.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is putting your god in a box Jason.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And by doing so you are effectively saying your god i=
> s
> > not all
> > > > > > > > > > > > knowing.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because you want the bad guys to have free will.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because you want to absolve your god from any
> > > > responsibility=3D
> > > > > > > =A0for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the bad guys actions.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you do that Jason?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > I disagree--God has vast knowledge and can make use of =
> that
> > > > knowled=3D
> > > > > > > ge to
> > > > > > > > > > > solve various problems. I don't place God in a box.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Let's see now.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Recently you said your god is omniscient, that Jason mean=
> s you
> > > > > > > > > > acknowledge your god is all knowing.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Yet here you are putting your god in a box by saying your=
> god
> > > > only ha=3D
> > > > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > > vast knowledge.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Why do you limit your god Jason?
> >
> > > > > > > > > OK--
> > > > > > > > > God has VAST knowledge. I don't recall stating that God ONL=
> Y has
> > > > vast k=3D
> > > > > > > nowledge.
> >
> > > > > > > > VAST knowledge is a totally different thing than being ALL kn=
> owing.
> >
> > > > > > > I've tried to tell him that already.
> >
> > > > > > > VAST is not the same as ALL.
> >
> > > > > > > VAST limits his god's capacity.
> >
> > > > > > > Ergo he puts his god in a box.
> >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > a.a. #2273
> >
> > > > > > OK--ALL KNOWLEDGE
> >
> > > > > Then, nobody has free will. If God is all knowing, he knows everyth=
> ing
> > > > > you will do. Therefore, you have to do what he knows you will do, a=
> nd
> > > > > you have no free will.
> >
> > > > > Oh yes, where did the water go?
> >
> > > > Yes, God knows everything. However, I continue to believe that God ca=
> n
> > > > take days off and meditate on those days off. Evidence: Jesus done it=
> on a
> > > > regular basis. Jesus once said--"when you have seen me, you have seen=
> the
> > > > father". Jesus learned how to meditate from watching his father medit=
> ate.
> >
> > > Actually, it has been proven that the word meditate is not anywhere in
> > > the Bible.
> >
> > > The fact is, you cannot have an omniscient being and have people with
> > > free will The two concepts are mutually exclusive. If an omniscient
> > > being exists, s/he can't "take a day off", since that being just knows
> > > everything, including what you will do at any given point in =A0your li=
> fe.
> > > Therefore, if an omniscient being exists, there cannot be free will.
> >
> > I heard a famous preacher discussing this subject. I agree with his point
> > of view. He said something like this about Adam and Eve.
> >
> > Pastor Chuck Smith said that God knew the actions Adam and Eve would be
> > taking in the future related to eating fruit obtained from the forbitten
> > tree.
> >
> > However, it did not mean that God played any role in regard to causing
> > them to take those actions. Those actions they took in regard to eating
> > that forbidden fruit were entirely based on free will. God did not
> > influence them to take those actions.
> >
> > I will apply what Chuck Smith said to you.
> >
> > God knows what you will be doing the rest of your life. However, God will
> > not have any influence on what you will be doing the rest of your life.
> > You can do anything that you want to do. God will not interfere. You have
> > free will.
>
> Jason try and open your mind to the truth.

OK

> You've accepted that your god is all knowing.

YES

> So think about what this actually means.

OK

> Your god knows everything you are going to say, think and do in your
> entire life.

> Right?

YES

> So nothing you "choose" to do can come about by free will.

> Got it?


You were doing great until you got to the last sentence.

God granted people on the earth the gift of FREE WILL. God did not create
programmed robots but instead God created humans with free will.

God knows what you are going to say, think and do in your entire life.
However, you have the freewill that is needed to do almost anything that
you want to do. That is the reason some people become excellent preachers
and others decide to become serial killers.


David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 7:05:01 AM3/22/12
to
In article
<Jason-21031...@67-150-123-106.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
You just admitted that God knows what you will do. Therefore, you cannot
have free will.
>
> God knows what you are going to say, think and do in your entire life.
> However, you have the freewill that is needed to do almost anything that
> you want to do. That is the reason some people become excellent preachers
> and others decide to become serial killers.

You have just admitted that God knows everything you will do. If that is
the case, you have no free will. This isn't that hard a concept to
understand. If an omniscient being (God) knows all that you will do in
your lifetime (and, you admit that he does), you *HAVE* to do what he
knows you will do. Otherwise, the being is not omniscient. As I said,
omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive concepts.

Jason

unread,
Mar 22, 2012, 12:58:10 PM3/22/12
to
In article <dfritzin-C99464...@news.eternal-september.org>,
You can still do whatever you want to do during the rest of your life. You
are not a programmed robot.


David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 8:17:33 AM3/23/12
to
In article
<Jason-22031...@66-53-214-216.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-C99464...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-21031...@67-150-123-106.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <39a1cc07-1538-459f...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Devils
> > > Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
You sound like a three year old, who is told he can't do something. The
fact is, if God is omniscient, you have no free will. We may think we
are doing what we want, but in actuality, it is what God knows we will
do. No effort is required on his part, since he just knows what we will
do, all the time.

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 10:13:39 AM3/23/12
to
On Mar 22, 6:42 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <39a1cc07-1538-459f-b2a6-7683dbdff...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, Devils
Actually there is nothing wrong with my last sentence.

Your god knows everything you are going to say, think and do in your
entire life.

You've accepted that.

So why can't you take the next step?
>
> God granted people on the earth the gift of FREE WILL.

That's where your thinking goes wrong.

If you have free will, your god can't be all knowing.

If your god is all knowing, you can't have free will.

> God did not create
> programmed robots but instead God created humans with free will.

Nothing in the creation stories says humans were given free will.
>
> God knows what you are going to say, think and do in your entire life.
> However, you have the freewill that is needed to do almost anything that
> you want to do.

You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at the same time.

> That is the reason some people become excellent preachers
> and others decide to become serial killers.

Do you really think people choose to become serial killers?

Jason

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 4:56:18 PM3/23/12
to
In article <dfritzin-254EF9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
God knows what we will do but we can do whatever we want to do since we do
have freewill.


Jason

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 5:04:06 PM3/23/12
to
In article
<00fd3784-de77-495f...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 22, 6:42=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <39a1cc07-1538-459f-b2a6-7683dbdff...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, Devil=
> s
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 21, 11:36=3DA0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article <dfritzin-685468.07112721032...@news.eternal-september.org=
> >,
> >
> > > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <Jason-2003122320150...@67-150-126-219.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > =3DA0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > In article <dfritzin-C3A30B.18454920032...@news.eternal-september=
> .org=3D
> > > >,
> > > > > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <Jason-2003121257460...@67-150-120-21.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > > =3DA0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <fc79cbc3-75f8-4aad-b2c5-99bd9aaa0...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroup=
> s.co=3D
> > > m>,
> > > > > > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 12:05=3D3DA0pm, tirebiter <dontspamme...@bigfoot=
> .com> =3D
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 3:44=3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > In article
> >
> > > > <f16a08c4-1904-4291-835e-77d9954d6...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on what you mean by "all knowing=
> ".
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word "knowing" means "in possession of kn=
> owle=3D
> > > dge"
> > > > > > and pre=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with "all" the meaning becomes "in possession=
> of =3D
> > > all
> > > > > > knowledg=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > e". Wh=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > else could "all knowing" mean?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > God has the freewill that is needed to focus on=
> any=3D
> > > thing
> > > > > > that w=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > e want=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > s to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focus on each day. I don't place God in a box. =
> God =3D
> > > can
> > > > > > know wha=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > tever =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chooses to know each day.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asked me what I meant by all knowing, I've gi=
> ven =3D
> > > you
> > > > > > my answe=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > r.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet you don't address it, and claim you don't out=
> you=3D
> > > r god
> > > > > > in a b=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > ox.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But straight away you limit your god.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is putting your god in a box Jason.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And by doing so you are effectively saying your g=
> od i=3D
> > > s
> > > > not all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > knowing.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because you want the bad guys to have free w=
> ill.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because you want to absolve your god from an=
> y
> > > > > > responsibility=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > =3DA0for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the bad guys actions.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you do that Jason?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree--God has vast knowledge and can make use=
> of =3D
> > > that
> > > > > > knowled=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > ge to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > solve various problems. I don't place God in a box.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Let's see now.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Recently you said your god is omniscient, that Jason =
> mean=3D
> > > s you
> > > > > > > > > > > > acknowledge your god is all knowing.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yet here you are putting your god in a box by saying =
> your=3D
> > > =A0god
> > > > > > only ha=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > > vast knowledge.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you limit your god Jason?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > OK--
> > > > > > > > > > > God has VAST knowledge. I don't recall stating that God=
> ONL=3D
> > > Y has
> > > > > > vast k=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > nowledge.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > VAST knowledge is a totally different thing than being AL=
> L kn=3D
> > > owing.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I've tried to tell him that already.
> >
> > > > > > > > > VAST is not the same as ALL.
> >
> > > > > > > > > VAST limits his god's capacity.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Ergo he puts his god in a box.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > a.a. #2273
> >
> > > > > > > > OK--ALL KNOWLEDGE
> >
> > > > > > > Then, nobody has free will. If God is all knowing, he knows eve=
> ryth=3D
> > > ing
> > > > > > > you will do. Therefore, you have to do what he knows you will d=
> o, a=3D
> > > nd
> > > > > > > you have no free will.
> >
> > > > > > > Oh yes, where did the water go?
> >
> > > > > > Yes, God knows everything. However, I continue to believe that Go=
> d ca=3D
> > > n
> > > > > > take days off and meditate on those days off. Evidence: Jesus don=
> e it=3D
> > > =A0on a
> > > > > > regular basis. Jesus once said--"when you have seen me, you have =
> seen=3D
> > > =A0the
> > > > > > father". Jesus learned how to meditate from watching his father m=
> edit=3D
> > > ate.
> >
> > > > > Actually, it has been proven that the word meditate is not anywhere=
> in
> > > > > the Bible.
> >
> > > > > The fact is, you cannot have an omniscient being and have people wi=
> th
> > > > > free will The two concepts are mutually exclusive. If an omniscient
> > > > > being exists, s/he can't "take a day off", since that being just kn=
> ows
> > > > > everything, including what you will do at any given point in =3DA0y=
> our li=3D
> > > fe.
> > > > > Therefore, if an omniscient being exists, there cannot be free will=
> .
> >
> > > > I heard a famous preacher discussing this subject. I agree with his p=
> oint
> > > > of view. He said something like this about Adam and Eve.
> >
> > > > Pastor Chuck Smith said that God knew the actions Adam and Eve would =
> be
> > > > taking in the future related to eating fruit obtained from the forbit=
> ten
> > > > tree.
> >
> > > > However, it did not mean that God played any role in regard to causin=
> g
> > > > them to take those actions. Those actions they took in regard to eati=
> ng
> > > > that forbidden fruit were entirely based on free will. God did not
> > > > influence them to take those actions.
> >
> > > > I will apply what Chuck Smith said to you.
> >
> > > > God knows what you will be doing the rest of your life. However, God =
> will
> > > > not have any influence on what you will be doing the rest of your lif=
> e.
> > > > You can do anything that you want to do. God will not interfere. You =
It's more complicated than that. In relation to some nut cases--you are
correct.

In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch Dexter. He has
complete control of his well thought out actions. Some real world serial
killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those are the ones that
are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year period without getting
caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DNA evidence and
fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.


David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 6:02:20 PM3/23/12
to
In article <Jason-23031...@66-53-214-94.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
That is impossible. If God knows what we are going to do, we don't have
free will. If God doesn't know what we are going to do, he is not
omniscient. The problem with your "analysis" (and I use that word very
loosely) is that we may be sure we have free will, and are doing what we
want to do. But if God knows what we are going to do, we will do it.

Jason

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 2:59:16 AM3/24/12
to
In article <dfritzin-86B70E...@news.eternal-september.org>,
You have free will and can do almost anything that you want to do and God
will not stop you.


Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 3:09:19 AM3/24/12
to
On Mar 23, 9:04 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <00fd3784-de77-495f-9ac1-41b2c117a...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
I see you avoided this point.
>
> > > That is the reason some people become excellent preachers
> > > and others decide to become serial killers.
>
> > Do you really think people choose to become serial killers?
>
> It's more complicated than that. In relation to some nut cases--you are
> correct.
>
> In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch Dexter. He has
> complete control of his well thought out actions. Some real world serial
> killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those are the ones that
> are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year period without getting
> caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DNA evidence and
> fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.

Dexter is a fictional character, fictional characters are made in such
a way that the audience can relate to them. In fact that character
glamourises the serial killer, to make the audience relate to his
humanity all the more.

A better example of the serial killer is Hannibal Lecter, if you dig
deep into the story, you will find a root cause for his behaviour,
this character actually frightens the audience, because his story
shows how easy it would be for anyone to be pushed over the edge.

However just because a serial killer appears to be in complete
control, doesn't in the context of our debate support your idea that
your god can be all knowing and that we can have free will at the self
same time.

In fact serial killers are compelled by that root cause for their
behaviour to carry out their actions over and over again. That
certainly isn't free will by any stretch of the imagination.

Jason

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 3:18:35 AM3/24/12
to
In article
<e1ab8217-ef45-44f6...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 23, 9:04=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <00fd3784-de77-495f-9ac1-41b2c117a...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 22, 6:42=3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <39a1cc07-1538-459f-b2a6-7683dbdff...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, D=
> evil=3D
> > > s
> >
> > > > Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 21, 11:36=3D3DA0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > In article <dfritzin-685468.07112721032...@news.eternal-september=
> .org=3D
> > > >,
> >
> > > > > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <Jason-2003122320150...@67-150-126-219.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > In article <dfritzin-C3A30B.18454920032...@news.eternal-septe=
> mber=3D
> > > .org=3D3D
> > > > > >,
> > > > > > > > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > <Jason-2003121257460...@67-150-120-21.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com=
> >,
> > > > > > > > > =3D3DA0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <fc79cbc3-75f8-4aad-b2c5-99bd9aaa0...@z31g2000vbt.googleg=
> roup=3D
> > > s.co=3D3D
> > > > > m>,
> > > > > > > > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 12:05=3D3D3DA0pm, tirebiter <dontspamme...@b=
> igfoot=3D
> > > .com> =3D3D
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 3:44=3D3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) =
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In article
> >
> > > > > > <f16a08c4-1904-4291-835e-77d9954d6...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It depends on what you mean by "all kno=
> wing=3D
> > > ".
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The word "knowing" means "in possession o=
> f kn=3D
> > > owle=3D3D
> > > > > dge"
> > > > > > > > and pre=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > fixed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with "all" the meaning becomes "in posses=
> sion=3D
> > > =A0of =3D3D
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > knowledg=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > e". Wh=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > else could "all knowing" mean?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > God has the freewill that is needed to focu=
> s on=3D
> > > =A0any=3D3D
> > > > > thing
> > > > > > > > that w=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > e want=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > s to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > focus on each day. I don't place God in a b=
> ox. =3D
> > > God =3D3D
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > know wha=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > tever =3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > chooses to know each day.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You asked me what I meant by all knowing, I'v=
> e gi=3D
> > > ven =3D3D
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > my answe=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > r.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet you don't address it, and claim you don't=
> out=3D
> > > =A0you=3D3D
> > > > > r god
> > > > > > > > in a b=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > ox.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But straight away you limit your god.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is putting your god in a box Jason.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And by doing so you are effectively saying yo=
> ur g=3D
> > > od i=3D3D
> > > > > s
> > > > > > not all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > knowing.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because you want the bad guys to have fr=
> ee w=3D
> > > ill.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? Because you want to absolve your god fro=
> m an=3D
> > > y
> > > > > > > > responsibility=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > =3D3DA0for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the bad guys actions.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you do that Jason?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I disagree--God has vast knowledge and can make=
> use=3D
> > > =A0of =3D3D
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > knowled=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > ge to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > solve various problems. I don't place God in a =
> box.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's see now.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recently you said your god is omniscient, that Ja=
> son =3D
> > > mean=3D3D
> > > > > s you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > acknowledge your god is all knowing.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet here you are putting your god in a box by say=
> ing =3D
> > > your=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0god
> > > > > > > > only ha=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vast knowledge.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you limit your god Jason?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > OK--
> > > > > > > > > > > > > God has VAST knowledge. I don't recall stating that=
> God=3D
> > > =A0ONL=3D3D
> > > > > Y has
> > > > > > > > vast k=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > nowledge.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > VAST knowledge is a totally different thing than bein=
> g AL=3D
> > > L kn=3D3D
> > > > > owing.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > I've tried to tell him that already.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > VAST is not the same as ALL.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > VAST limits his god's capacity.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ergo he puts his god in a box.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > a.a. #2273
> >
> > > > > > > > > > OK--ALL KNOWLEDGE
> >
> > > > > > > > > Then, nobody has free will. If God is all knowing, he knows=
> eve=3D
> > > ryth=3D3D
> > > > > ing
> > > > > > > > > you will do. Therefore, you have to do what he knows you wi=
> ll d=3D
> > > o, a=3D3D
> > > > > nd
> > > > > > > > > you have no free will.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Oh yes, where did the water go?
> >
> > > > > > > > Yes, God knows everything. However, I continue to believe tha=
> t Go=3D
> > > d ca=3D3D
> > > > > n
> > > > > > > > take days off and meditate on those days off. Evidence: Jesus=
> don=3D
> > > e it=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0on a
> > > > > > > > regular basis. Jesus once said--"when you have seen me, you h=
> ave =3D
> > > seen=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0the
> > > > > > > > father". Jesus learned how to meditate from watching his fath=
> er m=3D
> > > edit=3D3D
> > > > > ate.
> >
> > > > > > > Actually, it has been proven that the word meditate is not anyw=
> here=3D
> > > =A0in
> > > > > > > the Bible.
> >
> > > > > > > The fact is, you cannot have an omniscient being and have peopl=
> e wi=3D
> > > th
> > > > > > > free will The two concepts are mutually exclusive. If an omnisc=
> ient
> > > > > > > being exists, s/he can't "take a day off", since that being jus=
> t kn=3D
> > > ows
> > > > > > > everything, including what you will do at any given point in =
> =3D3DA0y=3D
> > > our li=3D3D
> > > > > fe.
> > > > > > > Therefore, if an omniscient being exists, there cannot be free =
> will=3D
> > > .
> >
> > > > > > I heard a famous preacher discussing this subject. I agree with h=
> is p=3D
> > > oint
> > > > > > of view. He said something like this about Adam and Eve.
> >
> > > > > > Pastor Chuck Smith said that God knew the actions Adam and Eve wo=
> uld =3D
> > > be
> > > > > > taking in the future related to eating fruit obtained from the fo=
> rbit=3D
> > > ten
> > > > > > tree.
> >
> > > > > > However, it did not mean that God played any role in regard to ca=
> usin=3D
> > > g
> > > > > > them to take those actions. Those actions they took in regard to =
> eati=3D
> > > ng
> > > > > > that forbidden fruit were entirely based on free will. God did no=
> t
> > > > > > influence them to take those actions.
> >
> > > > > > I will apply what Chuck Smith said to you.
> >
> > > > > > God knows what you will be doing the rest of your life. However, =
> God =3D
> > > will
> > > > > > not have any influence on what you will be doing the rest of your=
> lif=3D
> > > e.
> > > > > > You can do anything that you want to do. God will not interfere. =
> You =3D
> > > have
> > > > > > free will.
> >
> > > > > Jason try and open your mind to the truth.
> >
> > > > OK
> >
> > > > > You've accepted that your god is all knowing.
> >
> > > > YES
> >
> > > > > So think about what this actually means.
> >
> > > > OK
> >
> > > > > Your god knows everything you are going to say, think and do in you=
> r
> > > > > entire life.
> > > > > Right?
> >
> > > > YES
> >
> > > > > So nothing you "choose" to do can come about by free will.
> > > > > Got it?
> >
> > > > You were doing great until you got to the last sentence.
> >
> > > Actually there is nothing wrong with my last sentence.
> >
> > > Your god knows everything you are going to say, think and do in your
> > > entire life.
> >
> > > You've accepted that.
> >
> > > So why can't you take the next step?
> >
> > > > God granted people on the earth the gift of FREE WILL.
> >
> > > That's where your thinking goes wrong.
> >
> > > If you have free will, your god can't be all knowing.
> >
> > > If your god is all knowing, you can't have free will.
> >
> > > > God did not create
> > > > programmed robots but instead God created humans with free will.
> >
> > > Nothing in the creation stories says humans were given free will.
> >
> > > > God knows what you are going to say, think and do in your entire life=
> .
> > > > However, you have the freewill that is needed to do almost anything t=
Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free will.


Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 6:01:23 AM3/24/12
to
On Mar 24, 7:18 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

> > > > You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at the same time.
>
> > I see you avoided this point.

And you avoided it again.
And you want free will while wanting your god to be all knowing.

The world doesn't work that way Jason.

I see you chose to avoid discussing serial killers as well.

Why is that Jason?

David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 6:54:24 AM3/24/12
to
In article <Jason-23031...@66-53-212-1.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

[snip]
> Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free will.

Then you say that God is not omniscient. You can't have it both ways, no
matter how many times you make the ridiculous, illogical assertion. Free
will and the presence of an omniscient (and, omnipresent, to boot) being
are mutually exclusive.

David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 6:56:58 AM3/24/12
to
In article <Jason-23031...@66-53-212-1.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
God doesn't have to "stop" me. He knows what I will do, and he is
omniscient. Therefore, I will do what he *knows* I will do. I have no
choice. If I do, then God isn't omniscient. It isn't that he is forcing
me to do what he wants. He just knows what I will do, so I must do it. I
even think I am doing it because I want to, but the fact is, I am doing
it because God knows I will do it.

Again, free will and the presence of an omniscient being are mutually
exclusive.

Melissa

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 6:58:35 AM3/24/12
to
God of Bible is not omniscient. God that is omniscient does
not have to tempt his creatures in other to find out
outcome. Book of Job is proof that God is not omniscient.

David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 7:10:16 AM3/24/12
to
In article <jkk9cr$1b1$4...@news.albasani.net>, Melissa <me...@a.com>
wrote:
I'm not arguing God is omniscient. I'm arguing that if we have free
will, as Jason claims, then God cannot be omniscient. This is a long
standing discussion many of us and Jason have had, and it is clear that
Jason refused to believe the logic that proves him wrong. That the Bible
proves him wrong is just icing on the cake, as it were.

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 7:47:59 AM3/24/12
to
On Mar 24, 11:10 am, David Fritzinger
<dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <jkk9cr$1b...@news.albasani.net>, Melissa <me...@a.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:54:24 -0400
> > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <Jason-2303122318350...@66-53-212-1.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > >  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > [snip]
> > > > Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free
> > > > will.
>
> > > Then you say that God is not omniscient. You can't have it both ways,
> > > no matter how many times you make the ridiculous, illogical
> > > assertion. Free will and the presence of an omniscient (and,
> > > omnipresent, to boot) being are mutually exclusive.
>
> > God of Bible is not omniscient. God that is omniscient does
> > not have to tempt his creatures in other to find out
> > outcome. Book of Job is proof that God is not omniscient.
>
> I'm not arguing God is omniscient. I'm arguing that if we have free
> will, as Jason claims, then God cannot be omniscient. This is a long
> standing discussion many of us and Jason have had, and it is clear that
> Jason refused to believe the logic that proves him wrong. That the Bible
> proves him wrong is just icing on the cake, as it were.

Surely its the marzipan under the icing on the cake?

The icing on the cake, in my opinion, is that Jason has no evidence
for the existence of his chosen deity.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 8:55:40 AM3/24/12
to
On 3/24/2012 2:18 AM, Jason wrote:
> In article
> <e1ab8217-ef45-44f6...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> Devils Advocaat<manky...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 23, 9:04=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <00fd3784-de77-495f-9ac1-41b2c117a...@d17g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Devils Advocaat<mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
Do you call it free will when a person has a mental disorder that makes
them act compulsively, even to their own detriment? Do psychotics have
free will to have or not have hallucinations and delusions? Are addicts
acting out of their own free will when they take drugs that could kill
them?

Funny kind of free will, that.


linuxgal

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 6:29:45 PM3/23/12
to
David Fritzinger wrote:
>
> I'm not arguing God is omniscient. I'm arguing that if we have free
> will, as Jason claims, then God cannot be omniscient.

God is not omniscient because he had to come down from orbit in an away
team just to see what they were doing on the Plains of Shinar.

Genesis 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which
the children of men builded.

linuxgal

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 6:39:18 PM3/23/12
to
Melissa wrote:

> God of Bible is not omniscient. God that is omniscient does
> not have to tempt his creatures in other to find out
> outcome. Book of Job is proof that God is not omniscient.
>

That's also why God asked Adam and Eve "Where are you?" and "What have
you done?"

linuxgal

unread,
Mar 23, 2012, 6:51:22 PM3/23/12
to
Jason wrote:

> Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free will.
>

Well then! When you get to heaven, watch your back. You'll be walking
around with a permanent trap door under your feet leading straight to
hell, ready to open at the slightest slip of the tongue. Ten thousand
years of singing "Amazing Grace" and if you say, "This is fucking
boring" that hatch flips open and down you go.

Mitchell Holman

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 9:56:44 AM3/24/12
to
linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in
news:G_udnZ5qF651U_DS...@giganews.com:
And he had to ask Cain where Abel was.




Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 24, 2012, 11:51:20 PM3/24/12
to
Silent again.

Trying to guess your way out?

It won't work.

Jason

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 3:43:03 AM3/25/12
to
In article
<494bd6cb-8173-4fea...@em9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 24, 7:18=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> > > > > You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at the same time.
> >
> > > I see you avoided this point.
>
> And you avoided it again.
> >
> > > > > > That is the reason some people become excellent preachers
> > > > > > and others decide to become serial killers.
> >
> > > > > Do you really think people choose to become serial killers?
> >
> > > > It's more complicated than that. In relation to some nut cases--you a=
> re
> > > > correct.
> >
> > > > In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch Dexter. He has
> > > > complete control of his well thought out actions. Some real world ser=
> ial
> > > > killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those are the ones th=
> at
> > > > are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year period without gettin=
> g
> > > > caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DNA evidence and
> > > > fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.
> >
> > > Dexter is a fictional character, fictional characters are made in such
> > > a way that the audience can relate to them. In fact that character
> > > glamourises the serial killer, to make the audience relate to his
> > > humanity all the more.
> >
> > > A better example of the serial killer is Hannibal Lecter, if you dig
> > > deep into the story, you will find a root cause for his behaviour,
> > > this character actually frightens the audience, because his story
> > > shows how easy it would be for anyone to be pushed over the edge.
> >
> > > However just because a serial killer appears to be in complete
> > > control, doesn't in the context of our debate support your idea that
> > > your god can be all knowing and that we can have free will at the self
> > > same time.
> >
> > > In fact serial killers are compelled by that root cause for their
> > > behaviour to carry out their actions over and over again. That
> > > certainly isn't free will by any stretch of the imagination.
> >
> > Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free will.
>
> And you want free will while wanting your god to be all knowing.
>
> The world doesn't work that way Jason.
>
> I see you chose to avoid discussing serial killers as well.
>
> Why is that Jason?

God can do any thing he wants to do--including granting people and angels
free will.


Jason

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 3:44:25 AM3/25/12
to
In article
<6d57c10c-8afe-496c...@w1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Devils
Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 24, 11:01=A0am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 7:18=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > [snipped for brevity]
> >
> > > > > > You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at the same time=
> .
> >
> > > > I see you avoided this point.
> >
> > And you avoided it again.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > > That is the reason some people become excellent preachers
> > > > > > > and others decide to become serial killers.
> >
> > > > > > Do you really think people choose to become serial killers?
> >
> > > > > It's more complicated than that. In relation to some nut cases--you=
> are
> > > > > correct.
> >
> > > > > In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch Dexter. He ha=
> s
> > > > > complete control of his well thought out actions. Some real world s=
> erial
> > > > > killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those are the ones =
> that
> > > > > are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year period without gett=
> ing
> > > > > caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DNA evidence and
> > > > > fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.
> >
> > > > Dexter is a fictional character, fictional characters are made in suc=
> h
> > > > a way that the audience can relate to them. In fact that character
> > > > glamourises the serial killer, to make the audience relate to his
> > > > humanity all the more.
> >
> > > > A better example of the serial killer is Hannibal Lecter, if you dig
> > > > deep into the story, you will find a root cause for his behaviour,
> > > > this character actually frightens the audience, because his story
> > > > shows how easy it would be for anyone to be pushed over the edge.
> >
> > > > However just because a serial killer appears to be in complete
> > > > control, doesn't in the context of our debate support your idea that
> > > > your god can be all knowing and that we can have free will at the sel=
> f
> > > > same time.
> >
> > > > In fact serial killers are compelled by that root cause for their
> > > > behaviour to carry out their actions over and over again. That
> > > > certainly isn't free will by any stretch of the imagination.
> >
> > > Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free will.
> >
> > And you want free will while wanting your god to be all knowing.
> >
> > The world doesn't work that way Jason.
> >
> > I see you chose to avoid discussing serial killers as well.
> >
> > Why is that Jason?
>
> Silent again.
>
> Trying to guess your way out?
>
> It won't work.


What question do you have about my attitude of serial killers. Dexter is
American's favorite serial killer.


Jason

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 3:45:45 AM3/25/12
to
In article <G_udnZhqF64mTPDS...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
I'm looking forward to getting a new spirit body when I make it to heaven.
I am tired of having heart disease and a kidney disorder that may lead to
kidney failure.


Jason

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 3:48:01 AM3/25/12
to
In article <dvjbr.14270$cd7...@newsfe06.iad>, Tom McDonald
I have had to deal with various patients that had those disorders. We kept
them well medicated.


Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 3:58:18 AM3/25/12
to
On Mar 25, 8:44 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <6d57c10c-8afe-496c-ac3b-2bea0c2cd...@w1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Devils
Too lazy to scroll back to even recent posts.

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 4:04:02 AM3/25/12
to
On Mar 25, 8:43 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <494bd6cb-8173-4fea-9db6-3551640c8...@em9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
An all knowing god knows everything you will say, think or do in your
life, right?

So your god already knows what you will say, think or do, right?

How can you have free will in such a situation?

Jason

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 4:42:05 AM3/25/12
to
In article
<e7e7500c-4e67-4d25...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 8:43=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <494bd6cb-8173-4fea-9db6-3551640c8...@em9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 24, 7:18=3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > [snipped for brevity]
> >
> > > > > > > You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at the same ti=
> me.
> >
> > > > > I see you avoided this point.
> >
> > > And you avoided it again.
> >
> > > > > > > > That is the reason some people become excellent preachers
> > > > > > > > and others decide to become serial killers.
> >
> > > > > > > Do you really think people choose to become serial killers?
> >
> > > > > > It's more complicated than that. In relation to some nut cases--y=
> ou a=3D
> > > re
> > > > > > correct.
> >
> > > > > > In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch Dexter. He =
> has
> > > > > > complete control of his well thought out actions. Some real world=
> ser=3D
> > > ial
> > > > > > killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those are the one=
> s th=3D
> > > at
> > > > > > are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year period without ge=
> ttin=3D
> > > g
> > > > > > caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DNA evidence a=
> nd
> > > > > > fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.
> >
> > > > > Dexter is a fictional character, fictional characters are made in s=
> uch
> > > > > a way that the audience can relate to them. In fact that character
> > > > > glamourises the serial killer, to make the audience relate to his
> > > > > humanity all the more.
> >
> > > > > A better example of the serial killer is Hannibal Lecter, if you di=
> g
> > > > > deep into the story, you will find a root cause for his behaviour,
> > > > > this character actually frightens the audience, because his story
> > > > > shows how easy it would be for anyone to be pushed over the edge.
> >
> > > > > However just because a serial killer appears to be in complete
> > > > > control, doesn't in the context of our debate support your idea tha=
> t
> > > > > your god can be all knowing and that we can have free will at the s=
> elf
> > > > > same time.
> >
> > > > > In fact serial killers are compelled by that root cause for their
> > > > > behaviour to carry out their actions over and over again. That
> > > > > certainly isn't free will by any stretch of the imagination.
> >
> > > > Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free wil=
> l.
> >
> > > And you want free will while wanting your god to be all knowing.
> >
> > > The world doesn't work that way Jason.
> >
> > > I see you chose to avoid discussing serial killers as well.
> >
> > > Why is that Jason?
> >
> > God can do any thing he wants to do--including granting people and angels
> > free will.
>
> An all knowing god knows everything you will say, think or do in your
> life, right?
>
> So your god already knows what you will say, think or do, right?
>
> How can you have free will in such a situation?

Because you can say or think or do almost anything you want to do. God
will not stop you. You are not a programmed robot. You have free will.
Programmed robots don't have free will.


Jason

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 4:47:00 AM3/25/12
to
In article
<9ebe1e5f-ddba-4efa...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 8:44=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <6d57c10c-8afe-496c-ac3b-2bea0c2cd...@w1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, Devil=
> s
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 24, 11:01=3DA0am, Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 24, 7:18=3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > [snipped for brevity]
> >
> > > > > > > > You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at the same =
> time=3D
> > > .
> >
> > > > > > I see you avoided this point.
> >
> > > > And you avoided it again.
> >
> > > > > > > > > That is the reason some people become excellent preachers
> > > > > > > > > and others decide to become serial killers.
> >
> > > > > > > > Do you really think people choose to become serial killers?
> >
> > > > > > > It's more complicated than that. In relation to some nut cases-=
> -you=3D
> > > =A0are
> > > > > > > correct.
> >
> > > > > > > In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch Dexter. H=
> e ha=3D
> > > s
> > > > > > > complete control of his well thought out actions. Some real wor=
> ld s=3D
> > > erial
> > > > > > > killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those are the o=
> nes =3D
> > > that
> > > > > > > are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year period without =
> gett=3D
> > > ing
> > > > > > > caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DNA evidence=
> and
> > > > > > > fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.
> >
> > > > > > Dexter is a fictional character, fictional characters are made in=
> suc=3D
> > > h
> > > > > > a way that the audience can relate to them. In fact that characte=
> r
> > > > > > glamourises the serial killer, to make the audience relate to his
> > > > > > humanity all the more.
> >
> > > > > > A better example of the serial killer is Hannibal Lecter, if you =
> dig
> > > > > > deep into the story, you will find a root cause for his behaviour=
> ,
> > > > > > this character actually frightens the audience, because his story
> > > > > > shows how easy it would be for anyone to be pushed over the edge.
> >
> > > > > > However just because a serial killer appears to be in complete
> > > > > > control, doesn't in the context of our debate support your idea t=
> hat
> > > > > > your god can be all knowing and that we can have free will at the=
> sel=3D
> > > f
> > > > > > same time.
> >
> > > > > > In fact serial killers are compelled by that root cause for their
> > > > > > behaviour to carry out their actions over and over again. That
> > > > > > certainly isn't free will by any stretch of the imagination.
> >
> > > > > Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free w=
> ill.
> >
> > > > And you want free will while wanting your god to be all knowing.
> >
> > > > The world doesn't work that way Jason.
> >
> > > > I see you chose to avoid discussing serial killers as well.
> >
> > > > Why is that Jason?
> >
> > > Silent again.
> >
> > > Trying to guess your way out?
> >
> > > It won't work.
> >
> > What question do you have about my attitude of serial killers. Dexter is
> > American's favorite serial killer.
>
> Too lazy to scroll back to even recent posts.

I just done it and there are lots of former posts. Just write down any
question that you have about my opinions about serial killers.


Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 4:52:17 AM3/25/12
to
On Mar 25, 9:47 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <9ebe1e5f-ddba-4efa-97e6-f43efdbc8...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Recent posts in this thread Jason, there aren't that many that I
posted.

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 4:55:15 AM3/25/12
to
On Mar 25, 9:42 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <e7e7500c-4e67-4d25-9d88-2f0717357...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
But if your god is all knowing, all that you will say, think or do is
already known by your god.

> God
> will not stop you.

Who said anything about god stopping anyone?

> You are not a programmed robot.

How do you know that I am not a programmed robot?

> You have free will.

Not if your god exists and is all knowing.

> Programmed robots don't have free will.

If a human has free will.

Who is to say a robot cannot have the illusion of free will?

David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 7:08:41 AM3/25/12
to
In article
<Jason-24031...@66-53-212-206.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
If God is omniscient, nobody has free will. If *anybody* has free will,
God is not omniscient. The two concepts are mutually exclusive, in that
both cannot exist at the same time.

David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 7:11:39 AM3/25/12
to
In article
<Jason-25031...@66-53-212-206.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article
[snip]
> > An all knowing god knows everything you will say, think or do in your
> > life, right?
> >
> > So your god already knows what you will say, think or do, right?
> >
> > How can you have free will in such a situation?
>
> Because you can say or think or do almost anything you want to do. God
> will not stop you. You are not a programmed robot. You have free will.
> Programmed robots don't have free will.

As I've said before, God does not need to force you to do what he knows
you will do (note: I said what he knows you will do, not what he wants
you to do. Do you understand the difference?). The fact that God is
omniscient means that he knows what you will do, at every given moment
of your life. Therefore, you will do it. Otherwise, he is not
omniscient. You may think you are doing it because you want to do it,
but in actuality, you are doing it because God knows you will do it.
Otherwise, he is not omniscient.

David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 7:13:01 AM3/25/12
to
Dexter is a fictional character. His actions have nothing whatsoever to
do with the actions of a real serial killer.

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 8:04:54 AM3/25/12
to
On Mar 25, 12:08 pm, David Fritzinger
<dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <Jason-2403122343030...@66-53-212-206.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <494bd6cb-8173-4fea-9db6-3551640c8...@em9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Which seems to be a logic that Jason cannot follow.

ala

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 9:17:20 AM3/25/12
to

"David Fritzinger" <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzin-3DD530...@news.eternal-september.org...

>>
>>
>> What question do you have about my attitude of serial killers. Dexter is
>> American's favorite serial killer.
>
> Dexter is a fictional character. His actions have nothing whatsoever to
> do with the actions of a real serial killer.

I think Dexter is not my favorite serial killer. In fact I am equally unfond
of them altogether without having a favorite

However, he has created a lot of ghosts and there should be a crossover
where his ghosts start bugging the Ghost Whisperer

linuxgal

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 10:23:10 AM3/25/12
to
Jason wrote:

> God can do any thing he wants to do--including granting people and angels
> free will.

But apparently he doesn't want to do that.

Jude 1:[4] For there are certain men crept in unawares, **who were
before of old ordained to this condemnation**, ungodly men, turning the
grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and
our Lord Jesus Christ.

linuxgal

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 10:25:03 AM3/25/12
to
But it it's going to be so great why aren't you kicking off now? Why
wait for years down here with heart disease and kidney issues?

Tom McDonald

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 12:32:06 PM3/25/12
to
On 3/25/2012 2:48 AM, Jason wrote:
> In article<dvjbr.14270$cd7...@newsfe06.iad>, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/24/2012 2:18 AM, Jason wrote:

<snip>

>>> Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free will.
>>>
>> Do you call it free will when a person has a mental disorder that makes
>> them act compulsively, even to their own detriment? Do psychotics have
>> free will to have or not have hallucinations and delusions? Are addicts
>> acting out of their own free will when they take drugs that could kill
>> them?
>>
>> Funny kind of free will, that.
>
> I have had to deal with various patients that had those disorders. We kept
> them well medicated.
>
>
So you refused the free gift of God to those people. Why do you hate
God's gifts?

Free Lunch

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 4:14:19 PM3/25/12
to
On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 23:45:45 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<Jason-24031...@66-53-212-206.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>:
Yet you know that you have absolutely no evidence that you will get a
new spirit body.

ckdb...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 25, 2012, 9:29:18 PM3/25/12
to
On Mar 25, 4:42 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <e7e7500c-4e67-4d25-9d88-2f0717357...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
But he already knows what you will think, say, or do as he has ordered
it. If he didn't, then he is not all knowing and omniscient. How
can it be free will under those circumstances?

Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 2:46:24 AM3/26/12
to
In article <aMHbr.15964$yD7....@newsfe15.iad>, Tom McDonald
I don't hate God's gifts. Unless you have worked with psychotics--you
don't understand why I stated that we had to medicate them on a regular
basis.


Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 2:48:01 AM3/26/12
to
In article <vZCdnWPV_I5Nt_LS...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
I am helping people while waiting for my new spirit body. Paul done that.
He also had some sort of medical problem but kept working until he died.


Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 2:48:37 AM3/26/12
to
In article <44vum7dch2ujk0i26...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
I do have Bible related evidence and that is good enough for me.


Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 2:50:12 AM3/26/12
to
In article <dfritzin-3DD530...@news.eternal-september.org>,
I disagree. Some real serial killers are very much like the serial killers
that Dexter decided to kill before they would murder more people.


David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 9:17:17 AM3/26/12
to
In article
<Jason-25031...@67-150-122-180.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-3DD530...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-24031...@66-53-212-206.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
[snip]
> > > What question do you have about my attitude of serial killers. Dexter is
> > > American's favorite serial killer.
> >
> > Dexter is a fictional character. His actions have nothing whatsoever to
> > do with the actions of a real serial killer.
>
> I disagree. Some real serial killers are very much like the serial killers
> that Dexter decided to kill before they would murder more people.

Where is your evidence of this? Hint: TV shows such as this are for
*entertainment*, not for learning. Though it seems you take them as
truth, for some reason.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 10:19:36 AM3/26/12
to
On 3/26/2012 1:46 AM, Jason wrote:
> In article<aMHbr.15964$yD7....@newsfe15.iad>, Tom McDonald
I have worked with psychotics. You missed my point. Do you think
psychotics' behavior is governed by their will? IOW, could they will
themselves to not act psychotically if they chose?

The point is that not every person in the world has free will wrt every
aspect of their life. Not all decisions, actually by everyone, are
governed by free will--by choice.

There is some fascinating recent research that shows that our muscles
and endocrine system prepare for an action before our brain orders them
to take that action. IOW, it may be that none of our actions are
actually the product of conscious thought, but rather by either the
subconscious, or even possibly instinct. That, of course, if true, would
shoot free will right out of the water.

Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 3:51:02 PM3/26/12
to
In article
<8fd41017-de8e-4128...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 9:42=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <e7e7500c-4e67-4d25-9d88-2f0717357...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 8:43=3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <494bd6cb-8173-4fea-9db6-3551640c8...@em9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 24, 7:18=3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > [snipped for brevity]
> >
> > > > > > > > > You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at the sam=
> e ti=3D
> > > me.
> >
> > > > > > > I see you avoided this point.
> >
> > > > > And you avoided it again.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > That is the reason some people become excellent preachers
> > > > > > > > > > and others decide to become serial killers.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Do you really think people choose to become serial killers?
> >
> > > > > > > > It's more complicated than that. In relation to some nut case=
> s--y=3D
> > > ou a=3D3D
> > > > > re
> > > > > > > > correct.
> >
> > > > > > > > In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch Dexter.=
> He =3D
> > > has
> > > > > > > > complete control of his well thought out actions. Some real w=
> orld=3D
> > > =A0ser=3D3D
> > > > > ial
> > > > > > > > killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those are the=
> one=3D
> > > s th=3D3D
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year period withou=
> t ge=3D
> > > ttin=3D3D
> > > > > g
> > > > > > > > caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DNA eviden=
> ce a=3D
> > > nd
> > > > > > > > fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.
> >
> > > > > > > Dexter is a fictional character, fictional characters are made =
> in s=3D
> > > uch
> > > > > > > a way that the audience can relate to them. In fact that charac=
> ter
> > > > > > > glamourises the serial killer, to make the audience relate to h=
> is
> > > > > > > humanity all the more.
> >
> > > > > > > A better example of the serial killer is Hannibal Lecter, if yo=
> u di=3D
> > > g
> > > > > > > deep into the story, you will find a root cause for his behavio=
> ur,
> > > > > > > this character actually frightens the audience, because his sto=
> ry
> > > > > > > shows how easy it would be for anyone to be pushed over the edg=
> e.
> >
> > > > > > > However just because a serial killer appears to be in complete
> > > > > > > control, doesn't in the context of our debate support your idea=
> tha=3D
> > > t
> > > > > > > your god can be all knowing and that we can have free will at t=
> he s=3D
> > > elf
> > > > > > > same time.
> >
> > > > > > > In fact serial killers are compelled by that root cause for the=
> ir
> > > > > > > behaviour to carry out their actions over and over again. That
> > > > > > > certainly isn't free will by any stretch of the imagination.
> >
> > > > > > Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free=
> wil=3D
> > > l.
> >
> > > > > And you want free will while wanting your god to be all knowing.
> >
> > > > > The world doesn't work that way Jason.
> >
> > > > > I see you chose to avoid discussing serial killers as well.
> >
> > > > > Why is that Jason?
> >
> > > > God can do any thing he wants to do--including granting people and an=
> gels
> > > > free will.
> >
> > > An all knowing god knows everything you will say, think or do in your
> > > life, right?
> >
> > > So your god already knows what you will say, think or do, right?
> >
> > > How can you have free will in such a situation?
> >
> > Because you can say or think or do almost anything you want to do.
>
> But if your god is all knowing, all that you will say, think or do is
> already known by your god.
>
> > God
> > will not stop you.
>
> Who said anything about god stopping anyone?
>
> > You are not a programmed robot.
>
> How do you know that I am not a programmed robot?
>
> > You have free will.
>
> Not if your god exists and is all knowing.
>
> > Programmed robots don't have free will.
>
> If a human has free will.
>
> Who is to say a robot cannot have the illusion of free will?

It can't--but it can have what is called artificial intelligence--like
DATA on Star Trek--the next generation.


Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 3:52:03 PM3/26/12
to
In article <dfritzin-9B1586...@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-25031...@67-150-122-180.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > In article <dfritzin-3DD530...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <Jason-24031...@66-53-212-206.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > What question do you have about my attitude of serial killers. Dexter is
> > > > American's favorite serial killer.
> > >
> > > Dexter is a fictional character. His actions have nothing whatsoever to
> > > do with the actions of a real serial killer.
> >
> > I disagree. Some real serial killers are very much like the serial killers
> > that Dexter decided to kill before they would murder more people.
>
> Where is your evidence of this? Hint: TV shows such as this are for
> *entertainment*, not for learning. Though it seems you take them as
> truth, for some reason.

Some serial killers do a great job of not getting arrested--clearly well
thought-out murders.


Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 3:57:05 PM3/26/12
to
In article <_V_br.26432$OX6....@newsfe13.iad>, Tom McDonald
That's great. Psychotics are clearly an exception to what I have stated in
relation to free will. It confuses the subject to discuss them. In those
cases, the best solution is to keep them well medicated.

I understand what you stated in your last paragraph and have read similar
information. I continue to believe that normal people have control over
their actions. For example, neither you or I would ever commit first
degree murder. We can control our actions.


Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 3:58:04 PM3/26/12
to
In article
<deae678b-c097-4b70...@mq9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
"ckdb...@gmail.com" <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 4:42=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <e7e7500c-4e67-4d25-9d88-2f0717357...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 8:43=3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <494bd6cb-8173-4fea-9db6-3551640c8...@em9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 24, 7:18=3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > [snipped for brevity]
> >
> > > > > > > > > You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at the sam=
> e ti=3D
> > > me.
> >
> > > > > > > I see you avoided this point.
> >
> > > > > And you avoided it again.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > That is the reason some people become excellent preachers
> > > > > > > > > > and others decide to become serial killers.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Do you really think people choose to become serial killers?
> >
> > > > > > > > It's more complicated than that. In relation to some nut case=
> s--y=3D
> > > ou a=3D3D
> > > > > re
> > > > > > > > correct.
> >
> > > > > > > > In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch Dexter.=
> He =3D
> > > has
> > > > > > > > complete control of his well thought out actions. Some real w=
> orld=3D
> > > =A0ser=3D3D
> > > > > ial
> > > > > > > > killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those are the=
> one=3D
> > > s th=3D3D
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year period withou=
> t ge=3D
> > > ttin=3D3D
> > > > > g
> > > > > > > > caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DNA eviden=
> ce a=3D
> > > nd
> > > > > > > > fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.
> >
> > > > > > > Dexter is a fictional character, fictional characters are made =
> in s=3D
> > > uch
> > > > > > > a way that the audience can relate to them. In fact that charac=
> ter
> > > > > > > glamourises the serial killer, to make the audience relate to h=
> is
> > > > > > > humanity all the more.
> >
> > > > > > > A better example of the serial killer is Hannibal Lecter, if yo=
> u di=3D
> > > g
> > > > > > > deep into the story, you will find a root cause for his behavio=
> ur,
> > > > > > > this character actually frightens the audience, because his sto=
> ry
> > > > > > > shows how easy it would be for anyone to be pushed over the edg=
> e.
> >
> > > > > > > However just because a serial killer appears to be in complete
> > > > > > > control, doesn't in the context of our debate support your idea=
> tha=3D
> > > t
> > > > > > > your god can be all knowing and that we can have free will at t=
> he s=3D
> > > elf
> > > > > > > same time.
> >
> > > > > > > In fact serial killers are compelled by that root cause for the=
> ir
> > > > > > > behaviour to carry out their actions over and over again. That
> > > > > > > certainly isn't free will by any stretch of the imagination.
> >
> > > > > > Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have free=
> wil=3D
> > > l.
> >
> > > > > And you want free will while wanting your god to be all knowing.
> >
> > > > > The world doesn't work that way Jason.
> >
> > > > > I see you chose to avoid discussing serial killers as well.
> >
> > > > > Why is that Jason?
> >
> > > > God can do any thing he wants to do--including granting people and an=
> gels
> > > > free will.
> >
> > > An all knowing god knows everything you will say, think or do in your
> > > life, right?
> >
> > > So your god already knows what you will say, think or do, right?
> >
> > > How can you have free will in such a situation?
> >
> > Because you can say or think or do almost anything you want to do. God
> > will not stop you.
>
> But he already knows what you will think, say, or do as he has ordered
> it. If he didn't, then he is not all knowing and omniscient. How
> can it be free will under those circumstances?

It is free will since God has granted us with free will.


Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 4:00:12 PM3/26/12
to
In article <vZCdnWDV_I7Ct_LS...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
I seem to recall that scripture is about evil people trying to influence
Christians. I believe the scripture is warning Christians to ignore such
people.


Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 4:07:06 PM3/26/12
to
In article <dfritzin-5CE5D5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
God granted people with free will. A God that is omniscient can do it.

warning: subject change

Rush has covered this story and I just heard them discuss the same story
on the Glenn Beck radio show.

Obama was having a conversation with a very important person representing
the former Soviet Union. Neither of them knew that there was an open
microphone near them. Obama was recorded saying something like this: These
are my words--not Obama's words--"I have one more election and when I win
we can make a great agreement".

Rush's point was that Obama is presently concerned about public opinion
due to the upcoming election. However, after he wins election--public
opinion will no longer be important since it's his last election. As a
result, he can make any agreements that he wants to make without worrying
about what the public thinks about those agreements.


Caranx latus

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 4:05:35 PM3/26/12
to
On Mar 26, 4:00 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <vZCdnWDV_I7Ct_LSnZ2dnUVZ_rCdn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
What is a Christian supposed to do when *good* people who also happen
to be non-Christians try to influence him/her?

David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 4:24:19 PM3/26/12
to
In article
<Jason-26031...@66-53-212-201.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> God granted people with free will. A God that is omniscient can do it.The

No, you are wrong again. If God is omniscient, man does not have free
will. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. You have been told that
before, and all you can do is to assert the same thing, over and over.
Think about it for a change. If an omniscient being exists, no one can
have free will because that omniscient (and omnipresent as well) being
will know what every person is doing every second of their lives.
>
> warning: subject change
>
> Rush has covered this story and I just heard them discuss the same story
> on the Glenn Beck radio show.
>
> Obama was having a conversation with a very important person representing
> the former Soviet Union. Neither of them knew that there was an open
> microphone near them. Obama was recorded saying something like this: These
> are my words--not Obama's words--"I have one more election and when I win
> we can make a great agreement".
>
> Rush's point was that Obama is presently concerned about public opinion
> due to the upcoming election. However, after he wins election--public
> opinion will no longer be important since it's his last election. As a
> result, he can make any agreements that he wants to make without worrying
> about what the public thinks about those agreements.

Limbaugh's point is that anyone who listens to him is an idiot. *EVERY*
present can do more things after they are re-elected, since they no
longer have to worry about reelection. It is no surprise that right-wing
idiots like you and Limbaugh try to make something sinister about a
remark that just expresses what anyone with any sense (which excludes
most right-wingers, I suppose) realizes.

David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 4:25:38 PM3/26/12
to
In article
<Jason-26031...@66-53-212-201.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
So, you admit that God is neither omniscient nor omnipresent.

Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 6:01:19 PM3/26/12
to
In article
<22d5bc0b-fe63-4f71...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, Caranx
latus <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 4:00=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article <vZCdnWDV_I7Ct_LSnZ2dnUVZ_rCdn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> >
> > <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> > > Jason wrote:
> >
> > > > God can do any thing he wants to do--including granting people and an=
> gels
> > > > free will.
> >
> > > But apparently he doesn't want to do that.
> >
> > > Jude 1:[4] For there are certain men crept in unawares, **who were
> > > before of old ordained to this condemnation**, ungodly men, turning the
> > > grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, an=
> d
> > > our Lord Jesus Christ.
> >
> > I seem to recall that scripture is about evil people trying to influence
> > Christians. I believe the scripture is warning Christians to ignore such
> > people.
>
> What is a Christian supposed to do when *good* people who also happen
> to be non-Christians try to influence him/her?

If they are telling falsehoods--ignore him or her. I don't buy in to lots
of the crap that people tell me.


Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 6:02:11 PM3/26/12
to
In article <dfritzin-868394...@news.eternal-september.org>,
No--just that God can grant us with free will since God has the power to do it.


James Burns

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 6:31:52 PM3/26/12
to
I think that the reason is that Jason does not see any
difference between *making things up* and *finding things out* .

I expect Jason to deny that, but that is how it looks to me.

In particular, that would explain why he thinks saying he
believes something is some sort of devastating argument
in favor of whatever he is believing. If someone is
*making something up* then they have the power of the author
behind them. "The teenager goes into the haunted house alone
because I say so."


David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 6:59:45 PM3/26/12
to
In article
<Jason-26031...@67-150-127-92.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
I will keep repeating this until it penetrates your skull. If anyone has
free will, God cannot be omniscient. By definition, omniscient means
"all knowing". If anyone or anything has free will, they can do
something that God doesn't know they will do. Therefore, God cannot be
omniscient if people have free will. The two concepts are completely and
utterly logically incompatible.

Jason

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 8:06:19 PM3/26/12
to
In article <dfritzin-B96FF4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
I disagree--An omniscient God can grant people free will. He done it for a
reason--he wanted to be able to have fellowship with people. It's
impossible to have fellowship with programmed robots. He wanted some of
the people to have fellowship with him since they used their freewill to
make it happen. Paul and Elizah had fellowship with God. Billy Graham had
fellowship with God.

If people did not have freewill--God would not be able to have fellowship
with any people.


Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 7:56:39 PM3/26/12
to
On Mar 26, 8:51 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <8fd41017-de8e-4128-93c7-96e52f40a...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
That is a work of fiction.

Free Lunch

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 8:39:07 PM3/26/12
to
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:48:37 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<Jason-25031...@67-150-122-180.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>:
The Bible is full of errors and falsehoods. It is not evidence. You know
that.

linuxgal

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 10:28:51 PM3/26/12
to
Jason wrote:

>
> I seem to recall that scripture is about evil people trying to influence
> Christians. I believe the scripture is warning Christians to ignore such
> people.
>

If you ignore people, how can they be saved? Is it not written (Matthew
28:19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ... ?

linuxgal

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 10:39:17 PM3/26/12
to
Jason wrote:

>> But it it's going to be so great why aren't you kicking off now? Why
>> wait for years down here with heart disease and kidney issues?
>
> I am helping people while waiting for my new spirit body. Paul done that.
> He also had some sort of medical problem but kept working until he died.
>

Your ministry sucks. Where did you get ordained, Billy-bob's Seminary
and Fish Tackle, in the strip mall between Teriyaki Time and Tattoo Alley?

linuxgal

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 11:33:09 PM3/26/12
to
Jason wrote:
>
> It is free will since God has granted us with free will.
>

That's not what Paul said in Romans 9:

"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one
vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"

linuxgal

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 11:37:52 PM3/26/12
to
Jason wrote:

> It can't--but it can have what is called artificial intelligence--like
> DATA on Star Trek--the next generation.
>

This is reality Greg.

SkyEyes

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 1:37:17 AM3/27/12
to
On Mar 26, 1:07 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <dfritzin-5CE5D5.07113925032...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <Jason-2503120042050...@66-53-212-206.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> >  Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <e7e7500c-4e67-4d25-9d88-2f0717357...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > > > An all knowing god knows everything you will say, think or do in your
> > > > life, right?
>
> > > > So your god already knows what you will say, think or do, right?
>
> > > > How can you have free will in such a situation?
>
> > > Because you can say or think or do almost anything you want to do. God
> > > will not stop you. You are not a programmed robot. You have free will.
> > > Programmed robots don't have free will.
>
> > As I've said before, God does not need to force you to do what he knows
> > you will do (note: I said what he knows you will do, not what he wants
> > you to do. Do you understand the difference?). The fact that God is
> > omniscient means that he knows what you will do, at every given moment
> > of your life. Therefore, you will do it. Otherwise, he is not
> > omniscient. You may think you are doing it because you want to do it,
> > but in actuality, you are doing it because God knows you will do it.
> > Otherwise, he is not omniscient.
>
> God granted people with free will. A God that is omniscient can do it.

Sorry, sugarpants, but there's no such thing. Neuroscientists have
found that the rational mind reacts to a situation where a decision is
required *after* the unconscious part of the brain has already decided
what to do. The rational mind merely provides a rationale for what
the deeper parts of the brain have already set in motion.
>
> warning: subject change
>
> Rush has covered this story and I just heard them discuss the same story
> on the Glenn Beck radio show.
>
> Obama was having a conversation with a very important person representing
> the former Soviet Union. Neither of them knew that there was an open
> microphone near them. Obama was recorded saying something like this: These
> are my words--not Obama's words--"I have one more election and when I win
> we can make a great agreement".

Actually, what he said was "after this next election I will have more
flexibility."
>
> Rush's point was that Obama is presently concerned about public opinion
> due to the upcoming election.

Like *any* candidate running for public office *isn't*???

> However, after he wins election--public
> opinion will no longer be important since it's his last election. As a
> result, he can make any agreements that he wants to make without worrying
> about what the public thinks about those agreements.

Sometimes that's a good thing. He's got access to facts we don't have
a clue about, out here in civilian land.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

SkyEyes

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 1:53:28 AM3/27/12
to
On Mar 26, 12:58 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <deae678b-c097-4b70-ab6b-8563c4475...@mq9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Then why don't we have it? Studies in neuroscience says that we don't
- that the rational part of our minds supplies a rationale for our
actions only *after* the deeper and more primitive parts of the brain
have decided what to do.

Jason

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 4:26:38 AM3/27/12
to
In article
<2e9fe023-15da-42f4...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 12:58=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <deae678b-c097-4b70-ab6b-8563c4475...@mq9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "ckdbig...@gmail.com" <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 4:42=3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <e7e7500c-4e67-4d25-9d88-2f0717357...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 25, 8:43=3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <494bd6cb-8173-4fea-9db6-3551640c8...@em9g2000vbb.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> >
> > > > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:18=3D3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > [snipped for brevity]
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at the=
> sam=3D
> > > e ti=3D3D
> > > > > me.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I see you avoided this point.
> >
> > > > > > > And you avoided it again.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is the reason some people become excellent preac=
> hers
> > > > > > > > > > > > and others decide to become serial killers.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you really think people choose to become serial kill=
> ers?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > It's more complicated than that. In relation to some nut =
> case=3D
> > > s--y=3D3D
> > > > > ou a=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > re
> > > > > > > > > > correct.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch Dex=
> ter.=3D
> > > =A0He =3D3D
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > complete control of his well thought out actions. Some re=
> al w=3D
> > > orld=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0ser=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ial
> > > > > > > > > > killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those are=
> the=3D
> > > =A0one=3D3D
> > > > > s th=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year period wi=
> thou=3D
> > > t ge=3D3D
> > > > > ttin=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > > caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DNA ev=
> iden=3D
> > > ce a=3D3D
> > > > > nd
> > > > > > > > > > fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Dexter is a fictional character, fictional characters are m=
> ade =3D
> > > in s=3D3D
> > > > > uch
> > > > > > > > > a way that the audience can relate to them. In fact that ch=
> arac=3D
> > > ter
> > > > > > > > > glamourises the serial killer, to make the audience relate =
> to h=3D
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > humanity all the more.
> >
> > > > > > > > > A better example of the serial killer is Hannibal Lecter, i=
> f yo=3D
> > > u di=3D3D
> > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > deep into the story, you will find a root cause for his beh=
> avio=3D
> > > ur,
> > > > > > > > > this character actually frightens the audience, because his=
> sto=3D
> > > ry
> > > > > > > > > shows how easy it would be for anyone to be pushed over the=
> edg=3D
> > > e.
> >
> > > > > > > > > However just because a serial killer appears to be in compl=
> ete
> > > > > > > > > control, doesn't in the context of our debate support your =
> idea=3D
> > > =A0tha=3D3D
> > > > > t
> > > > > > > > > your god can be all knowing and that we can have free will =
> at t=3D
> > > he s=3D3D
> > > > > elf
> > > > > > > > > same time.
> >
> > > > > > > > > In fact serial killers are compelled by that root cause for=
> the=3D
> > > ir
> > > > > > > > > behaviour to carry out their actions over and over again. T=
> hat
> > > > > > > > > certainly isn't free will by any stretch of the imagination=
> .
> >
> > > > > > > > Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have =
> free=3D
> > > =A0wil=3D3D
> > > > > l.
> >
> > > > > > > And you want free will while wanting your god to be all knowing=
> .
> >
> > > > > > > The world doesn't work that way Jason.
> >
> > > > > > > I see you chose to avoid discussing serial killers as well.
> >
> > > > > > > Why is that Jason?
> >
> > > > > > God can do any thing he wants to do--including granting people an=
> d an=3D
> > > gels
> > > > > > free will.
> >
> > > > > An all knowing god knows everything you will say, think or do in yo=
> ur
> > > > > life, right?
> >
> > > > > So your god already knows what you will say, think or do, right?
> >
> > > > > How can you have free will in such a situation?
> >
> > > > Because you can say or think or do almost anything you want to do. Go=
> d
> > > > will not stop you.
> >
> > > But he already knows what you will think, say, or do as he has ordered
> > > it. =A0 If he didn't, then he is not all knowing and omniscient. =A0How
> > > can it be free will under those circumstances?
> >
> > It is free will since God has granted us with free will.
>
> Then why don't we have it? Studies in neuroscience says that we don't
> - that the rational part of our minds supplies a rationale for our
> actions only *after* the deeper and more primitive parts of the brain
> have decided what to do.
>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

I have read the same information. However, we can over-ride all of that
and do whatever we choose to do. I am referring to normal people--not
people that suffer from major mental disorders such as psychosis and
schizophrenia. They can't always over-ride it and some of them end up in
prisons or mental hospitals related to killing people or injuring people.


Jason

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 4:27:42 AM3/27/12
to
In article
<63110418-1139-47b5...@k14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 1:07=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article <dfritzin-5CE5D5.07113925032...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David Fritzinger <dfrit...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <Jason-2503120042050...@66-53-212-206.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > =A0Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > In article
> > > > <e7e7500c-4e67-4d25-9d88-2f0717357...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [snip]
> > > > > An all knowing god knows everything you will say, think or do in yo=
> ur
> > > > > life, right?
> >
> > > > > So your god already knows what you will say, think or do, right?
> >
> > > > > How can you have free will in such a situation?
> >
> > > > Because you can say or think or do almost anything you want to do. Go=
> d
> > > > will not stop you. You are not a programmed robot. You have free will=
> .
> > > > Programmed robots don't have free will.
> >
> > > As I've said before, God does not need to force you to do what he knows
> > > you will do (note: I said what he knows you will do, not what he wants
> > > you to do. Do you understand the difference?). The fact that God is
> > > omniscient means that he knows what you will do, at every given moment
> > > of your life. Therefore, you will do it. Otherwise, he is not
> > > omniscient. You may think you are doing it because you want to do it,
> > > but in actuality, you are doing it because God knows you will do it.
> > > Otherwise, he is not omniscient.
> >
> > God granted people with free will. A God that is omniscient can do it.
>
> Sorry, sugarpants, but there's no such thing. Neuroscientists have
> found that the rational mind reacts to a situation where a decision is
> required *after* the unconscious part of the brain has already decided
> what to do. The rational mind merely provides a rationale for what
> the deeper parts of the brain have already set in motion.
> >
> > warning: subject change
> >
> > Rush has covered this story and I just heard them discuss the same story
> > on the Glenn Beck radio show.
> >
> > Obama was having a conversation with a very important person representing
> > the former Soviet Union. Neither of them knew that there was an open
> > microphone near them. Obama was recorded saying something like this: Thes=
> e
> > are my words--not Obama's words--"I have one more election and when I win
> > we can make a great agreement".
>
> Actually, what he said was "after this next election I will have more
> flexibility."
> >
> > Rush's point was that Obama is presently concerned about public opinion
> > due to the upcoming election.
>
> Like *any* candidate running for public office *isn't*???
>
> > However, after he wins election--public
> > opinion will no longer be important since it's his last election. As a
> > result, he can make any agreements that he wants to make without worrying
> > about what the public thinks about those agreements.
>
> Sometimes that's a good thing. He's got access to facts we don't have
> a clue about, out here in civilian land.
>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

Thanks for an interesting post.


Jason

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 4:30:04 AM3/27/12
to
In article <wsGdnUziCeU1h-zS...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
I was referring to helping my neighbor take care of her disabled 81 year
old father. He has heart failure and two different bone diseases.


Jason

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 4:34:25 AM3/27/12
to
In article
<8645fbb8-6240-4d14...@k14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 8:51=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <8fd41017-de8e-4128-93c7-96e52f40a...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 9:42=3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <e7e7500c-4e67-4d25-9d88-2f0717357...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 25, 8:43=3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <494bd6cb-8173-4fea-9db6-3551640c8...@em9g2000vbb.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> >
> > > > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:18=3D3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > [snipped for brevity]
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at the=
> sam=3D
> > > e ti=3D3D
> > > > > me.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I see you avoided this point.
> >
> > > > > > > And you avoided it again.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That is the reason some people become excellent preac=
> hers
> > > > > > > > > > > > and others decide to become serial killers.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you really think people choose to become serial kill=
> ers?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > It's more complicated than that. In relation to some nut =
> case=3D
> > > s--y=3D3D
> > > > > ou a=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > re
> > > > > > > > > > correct.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch Dex=
> ter.=3D
> > > =A0He =3D3D
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > complete control of his well thought out actions. Some re=
> al w=3D
> > > orld=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0ser=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ial
> > > > > > > > > > killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those are=
> the=3D
> > > =A0one=3D3D
> > > > > s th=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year period wi=
> thou=3D
> > > t ge=3D3D
> > > > > ttin=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > > caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DNA ev=
> iden=3D
> > > ce a=3D3D
> > > > > nd
> > > > > > > > > > fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Dexter is a fictional character, fictional characters are m=
> ade =3D
> > > in s=3D3D
> > > > > uch
> > > > > > > > > a way that the audience can relate to them. In fact that ch=
> arac=3D
> > > ter
> > > > > > > > > glamourises the serial killer, to make the audience relate =
> to h=3D
> > > is
> > > > > > > > > humanity all the more.
> >
> > > > > > > > > A better example of the serial killer is Hannibal Lecter, i=
> f yo=3D
> > > u di=3D3D
> > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > deep into the story, you will find a root cause for his beh=
> avio=3D
> > > ur,
> > > > > > > > > this character actually frightens the audience, because his=
> sto=3D
> > > ry
> > > > > > > > > shows how easy it would be for anyone to be pushed over the=
> edg=3D
> > > e.
> >
> > > > > > > > > However just because a serial killer appears to be in compl=
> ete
> > > > > > > > > control, doesn't in the context of our debate support your =
> idea=3D
> > > =A0tha=3D3D
> > > > > t
> > > > > > > > > your god can be all knowing and that we can have free will =
> at t=3D
> > > he s=3D3D
> > > > > elf
> > > > > > > > > same time.
> >
> > > > > > > > > In fact serial killers are compelled by that root cause for=
> the=3D
> > > ir
> > > > > > > > > behaviour to carry out their actions over and over again. T=
> hat
> > > > > > > > > certainly isn't free will by any stretch of the imagination=
> .
> >
> > > > > > > > Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven have =
> free=3D
> > > =A0wil=3D3D
> > > > > l.
> >
> > > > > > > And you want free will while wanting your god to be all knowing=
> .
> >
> > > > > > > The world doesn't work that way Jason.
> >
> > > > > > > I see you chose to avoid discussing serial killers as well.
> >
> > > > > > > Why is that Jason?
> >
> > > > > > God can do any thing he wants to do--including granting people an=
> d an=3D
> > > gels
> > > > > > free will.
> >
> > > > > An all knowing god knows everything you will say, think or do in yo=
> ur
> > > > > life, right?
> >
> > > > > So your god already knows what you will say, think or do, right?
> >
> > > > > How can you have free will in such a situation?
> >
> > > > Because you can say or think or do almost anything you want to do.
> >
> > > But if your god is all knowing, all that you will say, think or do is
> > > already known by your god.
> >
> > > > God
> > > > will not stop you.
> >
> > > Who said anything about god stopping anyone?
> >
> > > > You are not a programmed robot.
> >
> > > How do you know that I am not a programmed robot?
> >
> > > > You have free will.
> >
> > > Not if your god exists and is all knowing.
> >
> > > > Programmed robots don't have free will.
> >
> > > If a human has free will.
> >
> > > Who is to say a robot cannot have the illusion of free will?
> >
> > It can't--but it can have what is called artificial intelligence--like
> > DATA on Star Trek--the next generation.
>
> That is a work of fiction.

It's my understanding that they are designing robots that have artificial
intelligence computer chips installed in them.


Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 4:49:53 AM3/27/12
to
On Mar 27, 9:34 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <8645fbb8-6240-4d14-ba60-c0d6f0a57...@k14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
That may be so, however it will be a long time, if ever, before an
android comparable to Lieutenant Commander Data exists.

But such an issue detracts from the point I am trying to get you to
understand.

Jason

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 5:03:06 AM3/27/12
to
In article
<e3ed4c22-79b6-431a...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 27, 9:34=A0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <8645fbb8-6240-4d14-ba60-c0d6f0a57...@k14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 26, 8:51=3DA0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <8fd41017-de8e-4128-93c7-96e52f40a...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 25, 9:42=3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <e7e7500c-4e67-4d25-9d88-2f0717357...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.co=
> m>,
> >
> > > > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 8:43=3D3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <494bd6cb-8173-4fea-9db6-3551640c8...@em9g2000vbb.googlegroup=
> s.co=3D
> > > m>,
> >
> > > > > > > > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 7:18=3D3D3D3DA0am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrot=
> e:
> >
> > > > > > > > > [snipped for brevity]
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You cannot have an all knowing god and free will at=
> the=3D
> > > =A0sam=3D3D
> > > > > e ti=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > me.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > I see you avoided this point.
> >
> > > > > > > > > And you avoided it again.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the reason some people become excellent p=
> reac=3D
> > > hers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and others decide to become serial killers.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you really think people choose to become serial =
> kill=3D
> > > ers?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's more complicated than that. In relation to some =
> nut =3D
> > > case=3D3D
> > > > > s--y=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ou a=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > re
> > > > > > > > > > > > correct.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > In other cases, it's clearly a freewill choice. Watch=
> Dex=3D
> > > ter.=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0He =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > complete control of his well thought out actions. Som=
> e re=3D
> > > al w=3D3D
> > > > > orld=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0ser=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > ial
> > > > > > > > > > > > killers do it the same way that Dexter does it. Those=
> are=3D
> > > =A0the=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0one=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > s th=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > are able to murder a dozen people over a 5 year perio=
> d wi=3D
> > > thou=3D3D
> > > > > t ge=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ttin=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > > > > caught. The nutcases leave behind evidence such as DN=
> A ev=3D
> > > iden=3D3D
> > > > > ce a=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > nd
> > > > > > > > > > > > fingerprint evidence. They can easily be caught.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dexter is a fictional character, fictional characters a=
> re m=3D
> > > ade =3D3D
> > > > > in s=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > uch
> > > > > > > > > > > a way that the audience can relate to them. In fact tha=
> t ch=3D
> > > arac=3D3D
> > > > > ter
> > > > > > > > > > > glamourises the serial killer, to make the audience rel=
> ate =3D
> > > to h=3D3D
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > humanity all the more.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > A better example of the serial killer is Hannibal Lecte=
> r, i=3D
> > > f yo=3D3D
> > > > > u di=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > > > deep into the story, you will find a root cause for his=
> beh=3D
> > > avio=3D3D
> > > > > ur,
> > > > > > > > > > > this character actually frightens the audience, because=
> his=3D
> > > =A0sto=3D3D
> > > > > ry
> > > > > > > > > > > shows how easy it would be for anyone to be pushed over=
> the=3D
> > > =A0edg=3D3D
> > > > > e.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > However just because a serial killer appears to be in c=
> ompl=3D
> > > ete
> > > > > > > > > > > control, doesn't in the context of our debate support y=
> our =3D
> > > idea=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0tha=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > t
> > > > > > > > > > > your god can be all knowing and that we can have free w=
> ill =3D
> > > at t=3D3D
> > > > > he s=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > elf
> > > > > > > > > > > same time.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > In fact serial killers are compelled by that root cause=
> for=3D
> > > =A0the=3D3D
> > > > > ir
> > > > > > > > > > > behaviour to carry out their actions over and over agai=
> n. T=3D
> > > hat
> > > > > > > > > > > certainly isn't free will by any stretch of the imagina=
> tion=3D
> > > .
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Every person in the world and even the angels in heaven h=
> ave =3D
> > > free=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0wil=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > l.
> >
> > > > > > > > > And you want free will while wanting your god to be all kno=
> wing=3D
> > > .
> >
> > > > > > > > > The world doesn't work that way Jason.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I see you chose to avoid discussing serial killers as well.
> >
> > > > > > > > > Why is that Jason?
> >
> > > > > > > > God can do any thing he wants to do--including granting peopl=
> e an=3D
> > > d an=3D3D
> > > > > gels
> > > > > > > > free will.
> >
> > > > > > > An all knowing god knows everything you will say, think or do i=
> n yo=3D
> > > ur
> > > > > > > life, right?
> >
> > > > > > > So your god already knows what you will say, think or do, right=
> ?
> >
> > > > > > > How can you have free will in such a situation?
> >
> > > > > > Because you can say or think or do almost anything you want to do=
> .
> >
> > > > > But if your god is all knowing, all that you will say, think or do =
> is
> > > > > already known by your god.
> >
> > > > > > God
> > > > > > will not stop you.
> >
> > > > > Who said anything about god stopping anyone?
> >
> > > > > > You are not a programmed robot.
> >
> > > > > How do you know that I am not a programmed robot?
> >
> > > > > > You have free will.
> >
> > > > > Not if your god exists and is all knowing.
> >
> > > > > > Programmed robots don't have free will.
> >
> > > > > If a human has free will.
> >
> > > > > Who is to say a robot cannot have the illusion of free will?
> >
> > > > It can't--but it can have what is called artificial intelligence--lik=
> e
> > > > DATA on Star Trek--the next generation.
> >
> > > That is a work of fiction.
> >
> > It's my understanding that they are designing robots that have artificial
> > intelligence computer chips installed in them.
>
> That may be so, however it will be a long time, if ever, before an
> android comparable to Lieutenant Commander Data exists.
>
> But such an issue detracts from the point I am trying to get you to
> understand.

What point? You already know that I believe normal humans have free will.


David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 7:15:48 AM3/27/12
to
In article
<Jason-26031...@66-53-213-104.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
First of all, you are entirely illogical. Omniscience has absolutely
nothing to do with being able to grant people things. Please learn your
terms before you abuse them even more. Second, you are wrong. If God
doesn't know everything we will do, he is not omniscient. If he does
know everything we do, we have no free will.

> He done it for a
> reason--he wanted to be able to have fellowship with people. It's
> impossible to have fellowship with programmed robots. He wanted some of
> the people to have fellowship with him since they used their freewill to
> make it happen. Paul and Elizah had fellowship with God. Billy Graham had
> fellowship with God.

What are you blathering on about above?
>
> If people did not have freewill--God would not be able to have fellowship
> with any people.

If people have free will, God is not omniscient. If God is omniscient
(and, don't forget omnipresent, so you can't use the excuse that he
wasn't there at the time), then people cannot have free will, since God
knows their every action, in the present, past and future. As I said,
and as you refuse to understand, the concepts of free will and
omniscience are completely incompatible.

Alex W.

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 8:01:41 AM3/27/12
to
An ambitious marketing label, not an accurate description. One
single human brain has around 200 billion neurons connected by
hundreds of trillions of synapses. This means that one single
human brain has more switches than all the computer chips in the
world put together. The network of connections is more complex
than the entire internet by an order of magnitude.

In other words, when they say "artificial intelligence", it's the
same as sticking a Porsche 911 decal on the back of a third-hand
Pacer.


Harry F. Leopold

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 10:35:20 AM3/27/12
to
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:15:48 -0500, David Fritzinger wrote
(in article <dfritzin-1F3386...@news.eternal-september.org>):

snippage

>> If people did not have freewill--God would not be able to have fellowship
>> with any people.
>
> If people have free will, God is not omniscient. If God is omniscient (and,
> don't forget omnipresent, so you can't use the excuse that he wasn't there at

> the time), then people cannot have free will, since God knows their every
> action, in the present, past and future. As I said, and as you refuse to
> understand, the concepts of free will and omniscience are completely
> incompatible.

Let us not forget omnipotent. Not only did he know exactly how a person would
act/think, he made them knowing that by doing so they would have no choice
but to do as they were made.

Not only is an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent god a script writer and
director, he is also the puppet maker and puppet master. He is like the
people back in the day that made mechanical playboxes (all the way back to
the ancient Greeks to far more modern versions. He designed the play box,
wrote the script and the music, made all the pieces and then placed them
exactly where he wanted them.

Then he burns those parts that do exactly as he wanted them to do, You can't
get anymore crazy than that. I think Jason deserves what he would be getting,
if his god actually existed, that is.

--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)

"I've heard myself say a lot of vocal things, but I've never heard myself
think." - Duke32

Caranx latus

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 10:41:43 AM3/27/12
to
On Mar 26, 6:01 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <22d5bc0b-fe63-4f71-b3ee-8f84e5223...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>, Caranx
I did say *good* people, Jason. Try answering the question again.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 12:01:35 PM3/27/12
to
The very act of over-riding is also governed by forces of which we are
not conscious. You can't get around this.

Tom McDonald

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 12:05:40 PM3/27/12
to
On 3/27/2012 3:27 AM, Jason wrote:
> In article
> <63110418-1139-47b5...@k14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> SkyEyes<skye...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 26, 1:07=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

<snip>

>>> Rush has covered this story and I just heard them discuss the same story
>>> on the Glenn Beck radio show.
>>>
>>> Obama was having a conversation with a very important person representing
>>> the former Soviet Union. Neither of them knew that there was an open
>>> microphone near them. Obama was recorded saying something like this: Thes=
>> e
>>> are my words--not Obama's words--"I have one more election and when I win
>>> we can make a great agreement".
>>
>> Actually, what he said was "after this next election I will have more
>> flexibility."
>>>
>>> Rush's point was that Obama is presently concerned about public opinion
>>> due to the upcoming election.
>>
>> Like *any* candidate running for public office *isn't*???
>>
>>> However, after he wins election--public
>>> opinion will no longer be important since it's his last election. As a
>>> result, he can make any agreements that he wants to make without worrying
>>> about what the public thinks about those agreements.
>>
>> Sometimes that's a good thing. He's got access to facts we don't have
>> a clue about, out here in civilian land.
>
> Thanks for an interesting post.
>
>
Obama said what other presidents, including all Republican presidents,
have said. Once they do not have to run for re-election, they have more
freedom from political constraints and can make wise and logical choices
about nuclear weapons without worrying how those choices would affect
them politically. Even Reagan, whom I assume you revere, did the same in
his second term. It's what presidents do, and isn't shady, as you appear
to think it is.

Free Lunch

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 6:32:08 PM3/27/12
to
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:30:04 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-27031...@66.53.221.46>:
I'm very glad you help your neighbor and her father. Of course all good
people do that, it has nothing to do with being Christian, it has to do
with being good. Paul Ryan claims to be Christian and his goal is to
shred the social safety net. Clearly he is not a good man. I don't
really care if he claims to be Christian, even though he follows the
foolish precepts of the religion-hating Ayn Rand.

Jason

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 7:01:16 PM3/27/12
to
In article <gsf4n7h9tavic1ujd...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
Paul Ryan is an expert on budgets and on the national debt. He knows that
America is heading towards bankrupsy unless we get our federal budget and
national debt problems under control. For some unknown reason, Obama does
not seem to care about those issues. The liberal democrats also don't seem
to care about that issue.


Free Lunch

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 9:22:41 PM3/27/12
to
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:01:16 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<Jason-27031...@67-150-125-228.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>:
So you think that the poor should suffer and the rich should get more
tax breaks to keep our government from going into the fake bankruptcy
that you worry about. Clearly you hate what Jesus taught as much as Paul
Ryan does.

Jason

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 10:20:17 PM3/27/12
to
In article <9tp4n7t4455gh323m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
The socialist leaders in Greece have had that same point of view for the
last dozen or more years. The end result is that Greece is in the process
of going into bankruptcy. The only reason Greece has not yet gone bankrupt
is because Germany and some other Eurupe countries has provided them with
money to keep Greece from going belly up. If we don't solve our debt
problems--the same thing will happen to America that happened to Greece.


Mitchell Holman

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 10:38:29 PM3/27/12
to
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-27031...@67-150-125-228.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
What happened to the marvelous budget surpluses
that Clinton created and handed over the all-Republican
government of George Bush?




Clinton


Federal deficit in 1993 = 300 Billion
Federal deficit in 1994 = 259 Billion
Federal deficit in 1995 = 226 Billion
Federal deficit in 1996 = 174 Billion
Federal deficit in 1997 = 103 Billion
Federal deficit in 1998 = 30 Billion
Federal deficit in 1999 = 0 (1.9 billion SURPLUS)
Federal deficit in 2000 = 0 (86.3 billion SURPLUS)


Bush 43

Federal deficit in 2001 = 32 Billion
Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion
Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion
Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion
Federal deficit in 2005 = 318 Billion
Federal deficit in 2006 = 247 Billion
Federal deficit in 2007 = 177 Billion
Federal deficit in 2008 = 407 Billion

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0







linuxgal

unread,
Mar 27, 2012, 11:48:38 PM3/27/12
to
Jason wrote:

> It's my understanding that they are designing robots that have artificial
> intelligence computer chips installed in them.
>

So you know the part number for those chips? We could use some in our
torpedoes.


Jason

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 2:09:17 AM3/28/12
to
In article <Ds6dnUFdQIr24e_S...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
No


Jason

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 2:08:41 AM3/28/12
to
In article <XnsA023DB6B216D4...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell
OK--the wars are to blame for most of those increases.

NOW--post the federal deficit in 2009--2011


Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 3:17:09 AM3/28/12
to
On Mar 27, 10:03 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article
> <e3ed4c22-79b6-431a-bb8d-732f58fd9...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
What do you mean by normal?

SkyEyes

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 4:04:13 AM3/28/12
to
On Mar 27, 4:01 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <gsf4n7h9tavic1ujd0bc5jb3d7ovlo2...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:30:04 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2703120030540...@66.53.221.46>:
> > >In article <wsGdnUziCeU1h-zSnZ2dnUVZ_vqdn...@giganews.com>, linuxgal
> > ><linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Jason wrote:
>
> > >> >> But it it's going to be so great why aren't you kicking off now?  Why
> > >> >> wait for years down here with heart disease and kidney issues?
>
> > >> > I am helping people while waiting for my new spirit body. Paul done that.
> > >> > He also had some sort of medical problem but kept working until he died.
>
> > >> Your ministry sucks.  Where did you get ordained, Billy-bob's Seminary
> > >> and Fish Tackle, in the strip mall between Teriyaki Time and Tattoo Alley?
>
> > >I was referring to helping my neighbor take care of her disabled 81 year
> > >old father. He has heart failure and two different bone diseases.
>
> > I'm very glad you help your neighbor and her father. Of course all good
> > people do that, it has nothing to do with being Christian, it has to do
> > with being good. Paul Ryan claims to be Christian and his goal is to
> > shred the social safety net. Clearly he is not a good man. I don't
> > really care if he claims to be Christian, even though he follows the
> > foolish precepts of the religion-hating Ayn Rand.
>
> Paul Ryan is an expert on budgets and on the national debt. He knows that
> America is heading towards bankrupsy unless we get our federal budget and
> national debt problems under control. For some unknown reason, Obama does
> not seem to care about those issues. The liberal democrats also don't seem
> to care about that issue.

Both Obama and the liberals care very deeply about the national debt
and getting it under control. It's just that they know you can't get
debt under control by cutting spending *alone* - you also have to find
new sources of income, i.e., you have to raise taxes on the rich
people. The economic theory behind this is well known, because we've
had several situations in history where we had debt and a Depression,
and those who tried cutting government spending just made the
Depression *worse*. In situations such as these, the government is
the spender of last resort: it has to spend money on a grand scale to
get the economy moving again - to get money into the hands of the
middle and working classes, who will spend it, thereby creating jobs.

Once the economy has gotten moving again and people are working,
paying taxes, and buying things (paying taxes on what they buy), you
have money to throw at the debt, thus buying it down.

This really isn't rocket science. It's been tried before in history,
and has proven to be the *only* thing that works when you have both
debt and a Great Recession.

SkyEyes

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 4:09:54 AM3/28/12
to
On Mar 27, 7:20 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <9tp4n7t4455gh323m77fkomcsa7k7qr...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:01:16 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> > <Jason-2703121501160...@67-150-125-228.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>:
> > >In article <gsf4n7h9tavic1ujd0bc5jb3d7ovlo2...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
> > ><lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > >> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:30:04 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
I lived in Greece, Jason, and Greece's problem was two-fold: (1) It
had a very bad tax collection system, which made it extraordinarily
easy for the Greeks to cheat on their taxes. Consequently, they
weren't bringing in *nearly* enough revenue. (2) The Greeks have been
very careless with their financial bookkeeping, so that nobody knew
*how* much money they actually had, or how much was going out to
projects like that aircraft maintenance facility they built up in
Tanagra, which is the project my husband worked on and the reason we
went to Greece in the first place. (3) In a burst of super-nutty-
generosity, they decided that anybody who wanted to could retire at
age 53 with a government pension.

So, in short: they took in very little money, didn't properly account
for the money they did have, and then arranged for people young enough
to still work to get pensions from that small store of uncounted money
that nobody was keeping track of.

And then there's how the Greek Orthodox church got into the scheme,
which I won't even go into here.

Devils Advocaat

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 4:53:37 AM3/28/12
to
Aww why not oh mighty cat-herder?

David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 6:47:59 AM3/28/12
to
In article
<Jason-27031...@67-150-125-228.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Paul Ryan is nothing of the sort. Republicans may have you believe he
is, but all he is after is to cut taxes on the wealthy and shred the
safety net for everyone else. Perhaps you should actually read some
analyses of his "budget" proposal. He claims all kinds of things, but
does not go into specifics at all.

> He knows that
> America is heading towards bankrupsy unless we get our federal budget and
> national debt problems under control.

Yup, and do you know who deserves the blame for that? Reagan, Bush, and
Bush. They are the ones who kept cutting taxes on the rich, saying it
would bring in more money. Hint: it didn't. At least Reagan was honest
enough to admit that, since he then raised taxes more than 8 times
during his administration. Bush the minor couldn't be bothered, so he
gave us the worst recession in over 75 years. Yet, you trust these bozos
when they claim that cutting taxes will improve the economy, even after
it has been shown not to work. To top it off, you want to vote for more
Republicans for president, even though their budget plans all add
trillions more to the debt, over what Obama would add. And, they would
do it by cutting taxes on the rich, and essentially destroying the
middle class in America.

> For some unknown reason, Obama does
> not seem to care about those issues. The liberal democrats also don't seem
> to care about that issue.

Can't you try to make any point without lying? This has been explained
to you multiple times before. Most of the debt that was amassed under
the Obama administration was caused by leftover Bush policies,such as 2
wars that weren't paid for and 2 sets of multi-trillion dollar tax cuts.
Yet, like the good little puppet you are, you want to blame Obama for
the mess he was handed.

David Fritzinger

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 6:49:38 AM3/28/12
to
In article <Jason-27031...@66.53.221.90>,
No, Jason, the BUsh tax cuts are to blame for most of those deficits.
Had you bothered to look at the citation I gave you, you would see that
the Bush tax cuts are the gift that keeps on giving, in that they are
the cause of most of the deficits we will amass over the next 6 years or
so.

Jason

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 4:38:39 PM3/28/12
to
In article <dfritzin-8B9C83...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Has Obama added any money to the national debt since he has been in
office? If so, how much?


Jason

unread,
Mar 28, 2012, 4:40:07 PM3/28/12
to
In article <dfritzin-7779BA...@news.eternal-september.org>,
What about the money that was added to the national debt in 2011? How much
did Obama add to the national debt in 2011?


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages