Believing Jesus faith ,Jesus,believe

[WENG 0]

Being a christian,i did trusted my God as my Lord and savior of my life ,because i can do nothing to save my self or to solve any problems.Jesus is my only one i trusted or believe because Jesus said whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.John3:16.I do nothing to save my self but only the person of Jesus.I based my belief on the Word of God because it said to believe or have faith in God will justified me.Eph2:8,9.For by grace are ye save through faith and not of your self,it is the gift of God not of works lest any man should boast.I m not not justified by works,but by the faith of Jesus Christ.Our works,or being good will save us ,or pay our sin,but through our Lord Jesus.God need for sinners is to believe Him or trusting Him only to save.There is no other way to heaven but only Jesus.

[Bikerman 2]

Being a christian,i did trusted my God as my Lord and savior of my life ,because i can do nothing to save my self or to solve any problems.Jesus is my only one i trusted or believe because Jesus said whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.John3:16.

Normally translated as

"?God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed, but have everlasting life?

The problem is that the actual Greek reads differently.

zoe aionion is the phrase used - it means 'life ages'. Life of the age was a phrase used by Hebrews in the millenial sense - it translates much better as 'life in the reign of Jesus'

God need for sinners is to believe Him or trusting Him only to save.There is no other way to heaven but only Jesus.

But the manual of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless her holy hooves) says that only by eating Ham and Pineapple pizzas may we approach a state of contentedness. There is no point going to heaven unless you are content - you'd be all grumpy and put a real downer on the atmosphere....

[truefusion 3]

The problem is that the actual Greek reads differently.

zoe aionion is the phrase used - it means 'life ages'. Life of the age was a phrase used by Hebrews in the millenial sense - it translates much better as 'life in the reign of Jesus'

Disregarding the fact that you would translate "ages" (plural) to "age" (singular) and disregarding the contextual evidence (e.g. references in the Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Revelations, Paul's writings and similarities in the other Gospels, etc.) on why the verse is translated the way it is in major translations, consider the following: Let's assume that it is better translated as "life in the reign of Jesus." The Bible mentions that Jesus is to reign until God puts all of his enemies under Jesus's feet. This is not to happen until Judgement Day. If it were true that we were to assume things in the millenial sense, it's been almost 2000 years since the Biblical crucifixion. That is more than one millenium.

[Bikerman 2]

Disregarding the fact that you would translate "ages" (plural) to "age" (singular) and disregarding the contextual evidence (e.g. references in the Book of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Revelations, Paul's writings and similarities in the other Gospels, etc.) on why the verse is translated the way it is in major translations, consider the following: Let's assume that it is better translated as "life in the reign of Jesus." The Bible mentions that Jesus is to reign until God puts all of his enemies under Jesus's feet. This is not to happen until Judgement Day. If it were true that we were to assume things in the millenial sense, it's been almost 2000 years since the Biblical crucifixion. That is more than one millenium.

But the view at the time was that Judgement day was imminent. Most of the early Christian sects were millenialists - they believed that judgement day would happen sooner rather than later. The fact that it didn't is a weakness in the bible, not in the critique.

[Harlot 2]

I believe that what is more important than the interpretation of the Bible is the question of who originally wrote it. In order words, the biggest question in regards to the Bible is its validity. In examining the validity of the Bible, the issue at hand is not whether or not some elements of the Bible are true of false, but whether the vast majority of it is true or false. For example, even if it can be proven that Jesus existed, which I believe it can be proven, the question still remains whether or not he performed the miracles claims in the Bible. And, how the the individuals who wrote the Bible, revised the Bible, or chose the books of the Bible effected by the political and social environment of the times. Why are their different books of the Bible, and what are the political implications of the differing versions and compositions of the Bible. It seems ever proof or evidence is requested in order to prove or confirm religious beliefs, the answer is "The Bible". Nevertheless, something that is not proven to be valid can not be used in order to prove something else as valid. The best argument used by believers, in my opinion, is that a belief is not subject to evidence. If that is the case, which I think it is, religion has little or no logical basis and can not be debated or argued. So even debating the context of the Bible, the origin of it, and the validity of it, is in a sense, irrelevant. I use to attempt to debate religion, but I came to the view that debating religion is completely pointless, and counter productive. People don't base their beliefs on logic, rationale, or anything tangible in the front place. In addition, who am I to tell someone what to believe in, and who am I to tell someone that they are wrong or hold an irrational belief, even if I believe that to be the truth. Obviously, no matter how much debate is conducted, unless there is undeniable evidence for or against the existence of God or the validity of religion, debating it is a game of back and forth, where neither party is provided with the foundation required to have a change of opinion or belief. Therefore, I think that both sides are wasting time, and only stirring up tension and division. If you love to tell someone their religion is wrong, and their beliefs irrational, then you are wasting your time. If you are condemning a non-believer and telling them that they are going to go to hell, you are also wasting time, especially when it is a fact that someone being a non-believer is reasonable when taking into account that there is no evidence to prove that any of the religious beliefs in existence are true. There are some who argue that they wish to "enlighten" the world when they argue against religion, and others who argue that they wish to "save" the world when arguing for religion. The world, as far as I can tell, wont be enlightened anytime soon. A poll of conducted in the U.S. that discovered that over 50% of Americans couldn't even name a branch of government or their congressional representative. If 50% of Americans can't name a branch of government, that says a lot about the world's potential to be enlightened (if the world's literacy is similar to that of America). On the other hand, it doesn't appear that the world will be saved anytime soon either, just look at the crime rates and the atrocious acts that are committed across the world each year. We can even look at the practice of corporations and the love of money that plagues the world - and has always plagued the world. Even the Bible implies that everyone will not be saved, and there will always be sin in the world.

[Bikerman 2]

Many of those who are critics of religion (including me) are driven by quite pragmatic concerns rather than a wish to establish their own view as dogma. You mention US surveys. Here is the one which I find scary and which prompts much of my criticism of Christianity.

45% of Americans think that evolution is a lie and that man was created, pretty much in his present form, a few thousand years ago.

(and I am using a very conservative GALLOP poll for that figure).

I find that horrifying and frightening. Nearly half of the population of the world's most technologically sophisticated country believe in fairy stories. The implications for the wider understanding of pretty much anything are completely horrendous.

[Harlot 2]

Many of those who are critics of religion (including me) are driven by quite pragmatic concerns rather than a wish to establish their own view as dogma. You mention US surveys. Here is the one which I find scary and which prompts much of my criticism of Christianity.

45% of Americans think that evolution is a lie and that man was created, pretty much in his present form, a few thousand years ago.

(and I am using a very conservative GALLOP poll for that figure).

I find that horrifying and frightening. Nearly half of the population of the world's most technologically sophisticated country believe in fairy stories. The implications for the wider understanding of pretty much anything are completely horrendous.

 

I didn't know that 45% of Americans believed in creationism, but its not at all surprising. In fact, I would expect the percentage to be higher than that based on my experiences and community. I would think the percentage would be at least 60%. I suppose that is because I live in a community where at least 99% of the people claim to be Christian. The city, which is medium sized (over 200,000 pop), is pretty much highly religious also. The governing body of our city has prayers before every meeting - which I think might be illegal. In my community, which is majority black, not believing in God is taboo. You are almost immediately an outcast at you are outspoken about your disbelief in religion. An atheist is something that exist only on television to many of them, like aliens. I think the younger individuals, around my age, are more tolerant of people who are non-religious. I told quite a few people around my age what I believed, and apart from an intense debate, they accepted it and didn't treat any different from what I can tell - but that's maybe because they already viewed me as a radical intellectual anyway. I only had a problem with one girl, and she was obviously a die-hard Christian, and if you ask me, she was the devil (ironically) incarnated. After she got pregnant, she pretty much stopped rolling her eyes at me and making funny looking. I guess she was too focused on getting forgiveness for engaging in sex, or at least it seemed.

 

At the moment, my beliefs are in the closet, and I intend for them to remain there. I am happy that I had the opportunity to debate it in high school with other students, and that will made realize that it shouldn't be debate. The debates usually ended with the other person saying that "faith is the proof" or something else equally irrational, philosophical, and emotionally driven. I do understand, in a sense, why most people in my community are religious. Although I am sure this does not apply to ever community, in my community, the less prospects they have, they more religious they are. People who can not uplift themselves from poverty, and have no skills, drive, knowledge to do so, tend to be extremely religious and put their money on the idea that God will uplift them. Its really like being on your last string, and due to that fact, I concluded that in a world that is unequal in wealth, education, and opportunity, religion is an important element that holds society together - despite the fact that its a lie. You have others, who have prospects, who are not truly religious, but they are obedient enough to believe it and don't know the capacity to understand how the majority could be wrong. I remember talking to a girl about it, and she said, "If it is wrong, why are you the only one who don't believe." It is almost like a crazy guy shutting that the world is going to end tomorrow on the side of the highway. I use to believe in religion, the fear of God was in me, so I really do understand how delicate the mind is. When you sit in a church and listen to someone you highly respect tell you over and over again that in order to go to heaven and leave your life of poverty behind, you must not allow anyone to lead you astray, you are going to see the devil in anyone who contradicts what your religion says. Besides, who wants to take a chance on leaving an hellish earth and go to hell instead of the golden streets of heaven. That prospective is unconsciously displayed when someone say, "Well if God doesn't exist, I won't be losing anything. But if he does exist, you will go to hell." They don't even take into consideration that if one of the thousands of "Gods" similar to their own exist, and they are serving the wrong one, they will be going to hell right along with me. The only difference is that I got there by admitting that I don't see any proof that God exist - although his existence is possible..., and they got there by acting like they do.

 

But I learned to accept people and their beliefs. Religion does benefit a lot of people, and I see it first hand. This is not to take anything away from it being irrational. As long as no one is forcing religion down my throat, I don't force agnosticism down their throat. I think a lot of atheist have begun to do the same thing that Christians historically did - force the belief down the throats of others. I say let people believe what they wish, as long as it does not interfere with the life of a third party.

[Bikerman 2]

I didn't know that 45% of Americans believed in creationism, but its not at all surprising. In fact, I would expect the percentage to be higher than that based on my experiences and community. I would think the percentage would be at least 60%. I suppose that is because I live in a community where at least 99% of the people claim to be Christian. The city, which is medium sized (over 200,000 pop), is pretty much highly religious also. The governing body of our city has prayers before every meeting - which I think might be illegal. In my community, which is majority black, not believing in God is taboo. You are almost immediately an outcast at you are outspoken about your disbelief in religion. An atheist is something that exist only on television to many of them, like aliens. I think the younger individuals, around my age, are more tolerant of people who are non-religious. I told quite a few people around my age what I believed, and apart from an intense debate, they accepted it and didn't treat any different from what I can tell - but that's maybe because they already viewed me as a radical intellectual anyway. I only had a problem with one girl, and she was obviously a die-hard Christian, and if you ask me, she was the devil (ironically) incarnated. After she got pregnant, she pretty much stopped rolling her eyes at me and making funny looking. I guess she was too focused on getting forgiveness for engaging in sex, or at least it seemed.

Yes, this is something many Americans don't seem to think is odd. A good number of British people are Christians, but there is a difference between being a Christian and being a Creationist. Creationism is anti-scientific nonsense which requires the believer to be scientifically illiterate or dishonest (there is literally no other choice). To believe that evolution is a myth, that the world is 6 or 7 thousand years old, etc, means one has absolutely no grasp of even very basic science. In the modern world that is not only worrying, it is disabling.

Remember the words of Voltaire?

Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

....

But I learned to accept people and their beliefs. Religion does benefit a lot of people, and I see it first hand.

Hmm...I am not sure that is correct. Let's put it this way :- if I give you a choice of the red pill or the blue pill, which one do you take? Do you think that living a comfortable life of delusion in a box is ever preferable to living with reality? The Matrix is a good metaphor for this dilemma, but my philosophy classes were a long time before it, so my professor framed it in these terms:

If I offer you a choice of putting your body into a coma and plugging your brain into a machine that will give you most everything you want, keep you stimulated and happy, or alternatively living in your body in the real world, with all the potential hardships and dangers that entails. Which do you choose?

At this point he would add - if you choose the former then I suggest you go and take council with wiser men than I, because I cannot help you.

 

Can it ever be beneficial to chose the 'plug in' option (or to take the blue pill)? I'll leave you to consider that one.

 

Then consider that religion very often makes people into bigots. They are certain that their beliefs are right and that others are wrong - based on nothing much at all. Oh sure, many religious people do good works for charity. Al-Queda and Hamas are known for their extensive charity work in the middle east. Does that mean they are benign, let alone 'good' ? I think not. Then consider how many millions of Africans have died from AIDS because of the Pope and his nonsense about condoms (not just telling people not to use them, but encouraging the spread of stories that they actually GIVE you Aids - all well documented). The breathtaking evil of that can scarcely be credited, and I haven't even started on the years of systematic abuse of children and cover-ups which followed - including the current Pope who knew all about the current cases 10 years ago when he was head of the Vatican enforcement group - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He should be on trial, not lecturing people about condoms. And I damn well hope that Catholics ARE doing lots of charity work in Africa - it might ease their consciences for all the evil they have also done - it is the very least they can do.

This is not to take anything away from it being irrational. As long as no one is forcing religion down my throat, I don't force agnosticism down their throat. I think a lot of atheist have begun to do the same thing that Christians historically did - force the belief down the throats of others. I say let people believe what they wish, as long as it does not interfere with the life of a third party.

 

Now here I have to take strong issue. You just told me that an atheist in your community would have a very hard time, particularly if they were honest about their lack of faith. Now you are telling me that atheists should leave such people alone with their bigotry? (and let's not beat around the bush - bigot is the correct word*). Well I absolutely disagree about as strongly as it is possible to disagree.

 

Firstly I'll be damned if I will suffer discrimination at the hands of religious bigots* because of my beliefs (or lack of them). Again, be clear, that is exactly what we are talking about here - bigots. From your posting I get the impression you might be black (simply because you mentioned that the community is largely black). I'm not going to try and say that religious bigotry is comparable with the racist bigotry that many blacks suffered (and some still suffer) in the US, but I am going to say that it is the same animal. Are you really going to take the appeasement route with bigots, and keep your head down and your mouth shut? Of course people have a right to believe whatever they like, and I will stand and fight for their right to believe in little pink fairies if they choose (and I really mean that - I have done it before). But I absolutely DEMAND the same treatment in return. How DARE the religious demand respect and tolerance for THEIR views when they are often completely unwilling to show the same to others.

 

Secondly religion DOES influence my life - and everyone else's life. Look around. Many of the people in the twin towers were atheists - it didn't stop them dying at the hands of religious zealots. We're in the season of 'Christmas' where Christians traditionally get all uptight about the 'real meaning' of the festival and try to make people who don't share their beliefs conform to some Christian notion of what is correct behaviour. That is supremely ironic since the real meaning of 25th December is a pagan festival which the Christians nicked to make themselves popular with the Romans. Saturnalia, Yuletide, Mithras-time - THAT is the real meaning of 'Christmas' - a pagan festival celebrating the solstice and the re-emergence of 'life' from the 'death' of winter. I've seen Christians go absolutely apoplectic when this simple truth is pointed out. One woman knocked on my door to ask me to join the 'Keep Christmas for Christ' campaign and was really rude and abusive when I pointed out a few facts about the season. So much for her Christian charity (I am slightly ashamed to admit that she riled me so much that I encouraged one of my dogs to show a few teeth to get rid of the *BLEEP* (not to bite or hurt, of course - I would never do that).

 

I've suffered prejudice and discrimination for being an atheist in my younger days, even here in the supposedly 'secular' UK (and again, I'm not comparing it to what many Black people experienced at the hands of racist bigots in the same period, but it IS the same animal, just with much fewer teeth and claws). Up until a couple of decades ago it was pretty dodgy declaring you were an atheist, if you wanted to 'get on' in your job and keep your position in society. It is precisely because of outspoken atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens that this has changed so much in that time. If you leave the religious to themselves they will NOT leave you to yourself. Many regard it as their solemn duty to 'bring you to Christ'. I'm not interested in 'converting' Christians to atheism but many of them are sure as hell interested in converting me to their beliefs.

 

Finally, an atheist is one who doesn't believe in God - period. A 'Strong' atheist asserts that God does not exist. That is a faith position, in the same way that asserting God DOES exist is a faith position. Most atheists I know are not strong atheists because they, like me, are rationalists and don't want to adopt faith positions on matters supernatural. I do not assert that God does not exist because there is no way I can prove that assertion. I say that there is no good evidence to persuade me to take God's existence seriously, in exactly the same way that I cannot prove that there is not a small teapot in orbit around Pluto, but there is no good reason for me to think that there is.

PS you say you are an agnostic but I think you are an atheist and I'll explain why.

Many people are so anxious to avoid the word atheist that they are happy to go along with a complete misuse of the word agnostic.

I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist. I have a friend who is Christian and is agnostic.

An atheist answers no to the question 'Do you believe in God(s)?'.

An agnostic answers no to the question 'Do you think the existence of God can be proved/disproved'?

I answer no to both and am, therefore, an agnostic atheist - and I suspect you are too :-)

Agnostic does NOT mean someone who is not sure whether God exists or not, it means someone who doesn't think it is possible to prove it one way or the other. Quite a few Clergy in the Church of England are agnostic.

 

Atheists like me (and we are the majority amongst atheists, I'm pretty sure) are not interested in 'forcing belief' on anyone. I have no beliefs to force on anyone. What I am MORE than interested in, is making sure that religious ideology is kept where it belongs - in people's private lives and in the churches, and out of civil, political and legal matters.

 

I actually envy you in the US here. You have a constitution which clearly draws a line between religion and state - the founding fathers were very clear-headed on that matter. In the UK we have no such legal division and religion pokes its nose into all kinds of state events and oprganisations. We even have a bunch of unelected Bishops sitting in our Parliament passing laws - and, get this - we still have a law of Blasphemy that makes it technically an offence to say bad things about religion - but not any religion, you understand - only the Church of England. You can be as rude as you like about Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics and the rest, but you cannot legally be rude about the Church of England.

So I don't accept that if we leave the religious to their beliefs that they will do the same for others - 2000 years of history shows that won't happen.

 

Let me give you an example. I am a teacher. There is a growing number of creationists here in the UK - though nowhere near as many as in the US - and, like in the US, these people want to introduce 'Intelligent design' into the school science curriculum. Now that not only affects the kids, if affects me directly because I would be expected to teach it - or at least not speak against it. I am not going to teach fariytales in Science lessons so it is important to me that this 'movement' is challenged robustly at every opportunity so that they do not gain power by default, whilst well meaning people congratulate themselves for being oh so tolerant and understanding. (And I don't mean that last statement to be taken personally, but I DO mean it).

 

* Bigot - one who is intolerant of other creeds, races or opinions. One who is irrationally devoted to their own opinions or beliefs and cannot accept that other opinions or beliefs may be equally valid.

 

That is a perfect description of many religious people I meet in life. Convinced that their little religious stgories are the truth and that anyone who doesn't buy into them is either bad, mad, or hasn't quite understood. The really annoying thing is that I know Christian scripture and theology pretty well - much more than most people who tell me, in patronising tones, that they hope I'll 'rediscover my faith' - as if I am somehow inferior or incomplete because I don't believe in their particular sky-fairy.

 

I'll finish this with another true story. About 4 months after my father died - my father was a devout catholic - I received a call at the door from one of his ex workmates. He was a Jehova's Witness and he stood on my step and told me that although it was too late for my father to gain salvation and avoid the fires of hell, there was still time for me, and did I want a copy of the Watchtower?

Can you believe that? I'm afraid that on that occasion I DID get violent, and I kicked his *bottom* all the way down the street. I still remember it vividly and that was nearly 30 years ago .....

 

PS - just to lighten the mood a little after that rant, you might enjoy a little tune I knocked-up last night on this theme. it's a different take on 'Stairway to Heaven' featuring a voice synthesiser on lead vocal (I did a version using my own voice but I prefer 'Mike247' :-)

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Edited December 31, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Harlot 2]

Remember the words of Voltaire?

Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Yes. Ironically, it was a quote used by one of my teachers who was fairly religious. He was also over a few academic groups in the school, and he would suggest that we pray before each competition. Although I am not religious, I don't see why not. It took a while for me to understand how such an intelligence, level headed, and tolerant man could be religious. In fact, I am almost certain that there was a part of him that didn't believe in religion. I was born in a religious home. I hate to use the word "religious home" because it gives off authoritarian undertones. I will correct myself and say that my entire family believed in God and would go to church every now and than. When you whole family and everyone you know believe in God, and you believe in God. You pray and when you do something wrong, you ask for forgiveness. When you prayer, you actually think God is listening to you. Then one day it hits you that the crap doesn't make sense, and slowly you realize that it is all made up. That is pretty much what happened to me, but my family still think I believe in God - or at least I think they do. As for voltaire's words, they don't apply to religion, they apply to intelligence. If religion didn't exist, the belief in absurdities still would and so would the existence of atrocities by deception. Religion isn't the issue, human intelligence is. Human ignorance is one of the key elements that perpetuate religion, and without it, religion would probably not exist. So in my opinion, religion is not the reason for ignorance; ignorance is the reason for religion. The world would be no better without religion because the source will still exist. Actually, I change my mind. It is not ignorance that that is reason for religion, it is the ignorance of ignorance and the ignorance of the effects of being ignorant of ignorance. I believe the same applies to Atheist who claim to be certain that a God does not exist. It would be like a human being in the dark age saying that they are certain that the earth is not a sphere floating around the sun. If you can not prove a statement is false, then you should say you don't know. If you can't prove that a God does not exist, then you should say that you don't know. To put it in more concise terms, if someone were to say, "Does God exist?", I would respond by saying, "I don't know". If someone were to say, "Is there a possibility for a God to exist", I would say "Yes". If someone asked, "Does God not exist?", I would say, "I don't know". If they say, "Is it a possibility that God doesn't exist", I would say "Yes". I think that is the position that thinking people should take, but Atheist don't take that position. They claim that they are certain that a God does not exist. My position is in no way to appease religion, as I don't believe in it, but I also don't know. People have issues with not knowing for some reason. People being scared of not knowing is one reason why religion exist, no one wants to admit that they don't know why the heck we are on earth or how we got here (outside of unproven theory). So in order to know, they create a story about a man who created the world in 7 days and is all seeing, all knowing, and perfect, but yet he is so imperfect and short sighted that he has to destroy the world with a flood because his creation was flawed and he didn't see it coming. Lets note that when I say "God", I don't necessarily mean the Christian God, but any super-natural life form. The word "super-natural" is actually descriptive, because super-natural is a word that we really use for nature or natural things that we can not comprehend. So we begin to rely super-natural as something that is scientifically impossible rather than something that is so scientifically advantage that we can not yet understand.

 

Hmm...I am not sure that is correct. Let's put it this way :- if I give you a choice of the red pill or the blue pill, which one do you take? Do you think that living a comfortable life of delusion in a box is ever preferable to living with reality? The Matrix is a good metaphor for this dilemma, but my philosophy classes were a long time before it, so my professor framed it in these terms:

If I offer you a choice of putting your body into a coma and plugging your brain into a machine that will give you most everything you want, keep you stimulated and happy, or alternatively living in your body in the real world, with all the potential hardships and dangers that entails. Which do you choose?

At this point he would add - if you choose the former then I suggest you go and take council with wiser men than I, because I cannot help you.

 

Can it ever be beneficial to chose the 'plug in' option (or to take the blue pill)? I'll leave you to consider that one.

 

It depends on how hard that the reality of the real world is, and we must understand that people have different realities. I had a hard time understanding that until I left the hood for a while and then had to go back. I realized that moods, in a very mysterious way (unexplainable), completely change based on your social condition. Therefore, I would say that picking the former is not as undesirable as it sounds. When you are living in a reality that is so grim and hopefulness, and there is no imaginable future progress...if you are on your last string and the belief that a God is in the sky that will make things work out for you, I say take the fantasy. The only other option is to give up, to die. People too often try to over simplify rather than understand. Of course this is not the case for everyone, but for most of the people in my community, it is. And their belief that they have no prospects are true. Some of them have a hard time finding the United States on a map. It all goes back to ignorance and ignorance of ignorance, but the ignorance is what lead to halted progress. It is not even able being intelligent either, but having common sense and thinking logically.

 

Then consider that religion very often makes people into bigots. They are certain that their beliefs are right and that others are wrong - based on nothing much at all. Oh sure, many religious people do good works for charity. Al-Queda and Hamas are known for their extensive charity work in the middle east. Does that mean they are benign, let alone 'good' ? I think not. Then consider how many millions of Africans have died from AIDS because of the Pope and his nonsense about condoms (not just telling people not to use them, but encouraging the spread of stories that they actually GIVE you Aids - all well documented). The breathtaking evil of that can scarcely be credited, and I haven't even started on the years of systematic abuse of children and cover-ups which followed - including the current Pope who knew all about the current cases 10 years ago when he was head of the Vatican enforcement group - the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He should be on trial, not lecturing people about condoms. And I damn well hope that Catholics ARE doing lots of charity work in Africa - it might ease their consciences for all the evil they have also done - it is the very least they can do.

 

Now here I have to take strong issue. You just told me that an atheist in your community would have a very hard time, particularly if they were honest about their lack of faith. Now you are telling me that atheists should leave such people alone with their bigotry? (and let's not beat around the bush - bigot is the correct word*). Well I absolutely disagree about as strongly as it is possible to disagree.

 

I will first say that my statement was taken out of context, I should have clarified. When I said that religion is a good thing, I meant for the individual. I know people whose last string is their religion, and their life is so miserable that without their belief in heaven and that a God is on their side, they would commit suicide. Their religion is what makes them content and at terms with their condition. A condition created by ignorance in most cases. As for religion doing good things in regards to helping others, it does, although that was not my original context. I have not problem with religion doing good, and I think Atheist groups should take note and focus more on improving the lives of people rather than combating religion. I won't comment on the Catholic Church, they leave a bad taste in my mouth. As for atheist in my community having a hard time in my community, it is true. Nevertheless, a Christian would have the same hard time in an majority Atheist community. The thing that should be stressed towards both sides is acceptance. I don't care if people wanna pray in public or exercise their religion, I accept it. If someone wants to do their witch craft or Buddhist chanting in public, I accept it. By confronting bigotry with bigotry, people are wasting time. My goal in life is to be a happier person, and gain as much knowledge about the world as I can. It is to be content with myself and I have no interest in telling other people what to believe or how to live their life. I would prefer that everyone keep their religion in the closet, but it just doesn't work that way. I keep my beliefs in the closet, I don't tell people my belief...which would probably be classified as agnostic or maybe there is no label for it...but I keep it to myself. People should believe in whatever makes life easier to live. If believe in a fairy tale make life easier for someone to live it, then power to them. As long as government maintains a separation of state, and make sure my head isn't chopped off, I am fine.

 

Firstly I'll be damned if I will suffer discrimination at the hands of religious bigots* because of my beliefs (or lack of them). Again, be clear, that is exactly what we are talking about here - bigots. From your posting I get the impression you might be black (simply because you mentioned that the community is largely black). I'm not going to try and say that religious bigotry is comparable with the racist bigotry that many blacks suffered (and some still suffer) in the US, but I am going to say that it is the same animal. Are you really going to take the appeasement route with bigots, and keep your head down and your mouth shut? Of course people have a right to believe whatever they like, and I will stand and fight for their right to believe in little pink fairies if they choose (and I really mean that - I have done it before). But I absolutely DEMAND the same treatment in return. How DARE the religious demand respect and tolerance for THEIR views when they are often completely unwilling to show the same to others.

 

Secondly religion DOES influence my life - and everyone else's life. Look around. Many of the people in the twin towers were atheists - it didn't stop them dying at the hands of religious zealots. We're in the season of 'Christmas' where Christians traditionally get all uptight about the 'real meaning' of the festival and try to make people who don't share their beliefs conform to some Christian notion of what is correct behaviour. That is supremely ironic since the real meaning of 25th December is a pagan festival which the Christians nicked to make themselves popular with the Romans. Saturnalia, Yuletide, Mithras-time - THAT is the real meaning of 'Christmas' - a pagan festival celebrating the solstice and the re-emergence of 'life' from the 'death' of winter. I've seen Christians go absolutely apoplectic when this simple truth is pointed out. One woman knocked on my door to ask me to join the 'Keep Christmas for Christ' campaign and was really rude and abusive when I pointed out a few facts about the season. So much for her Christian charity (I am slightly ashamed to admit that she riled me so much that I encouraged one of my dogs to show a few teeth to get rid of the *BLEEP* (not to bite or hurt, of course - I would never do that).

 

Yes, I am black. It is not about appeasement, it is about asking "What will this accomplish?" For example, if I ran into someone racist, I would not entertain their ignorance. I would accept that I can't change their views about race, and as long as the discrimination is not coming from someone who is legally obligated to be racial objective, I move on. I can't fully comprehend the realities of that individual and his life. So yes, people will discriminate based on religion. However, it is not an issue of religion...that is an issue of people. I have discriminated in this very post by calling religious people ignorant. I am sure that comment is offensive, and a religious person would not understand why I feel that why because they have a different reality. If I were to call a religious person ignorant, would them getting into an argument with me change anything? It would most likely just reaffirm my belief rather than force me to reevaluate my opinion.

 

 

Finally, an atheist is one who doesn't believe in God - period. A 'Strong' atheist asserts that God does not exist. That is a faith position, in the same way that asserting God DOES exist is a faith position. Most atheists I know are not strong atheists because they, like me, are rationalists and don't want to adopt faith positions on matters supernatural. I do not assert that God does not exist because there is no way I can prove that assertion. I say that there is no good evidence to persuade me to take God's existence seriously, in exactly the same way that I cannot prove that there is not a small teapot in orbit around Pluto, but there is no good reason for me to think that there is.

I absolutely agree. Let me note that I am commenting on this as I read it. So I made a statement regarding that trail of logic above before I read your stance - seems like I agree with you.

 

 

 

PS you say you are an agnostic but I think you are an atheist and I'll explain why.

Many people are so anxious to avoid the word atheist that they are happy to go along with a complete misuse of the word agnostic.

I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist. I have a friend who is Christian and is agnostic.

An atheist answers no to the question 'Do you believe in God(s)?'.

An agnostic answers no to the question 'Do you think the existence of God can be proved/disproved'?

I answer no to both and am, therefore, an agnostic atheist - and I suspect you are too :-)

Agnostic does NOT mean someone who is not sure whether God exists or not, it means someone who doesn't think it is possible to prove it one way or the other. Quite a few Clergy in the Church of England are agnostic.

Do you believe God exist? No - (belief = meaningless)

 

Does God exist? I don't know - (knowledge = significant)

 

Well I guess ill take a nap now. I am hope I didn't make too many contradiction in my reply...I am sleepy so I rushed through my response without much thought, and I change my mind a lot anyway (like Rousseau lol); I could have a different opinion about this tomorrow after thinking about it again. By the way, thanks for the music.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Harlot (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

Well, as regards having a religious background - I can probably see your religious home and raise you all-in. I was brought up in a devout Catholic family. I went to Catholic single-sex primary and junior schools and at 11 I went to a Salesian (Catholic Monks) single-sex Grammar school until I was 18. I was taught by Catholic monks - both Salesian and Jesuit - which is why I know the scripture and theology of many Christian sects pretty well (I studied theology for 3 years).

These Salesians are the same order who are much in the news over the last months for abusing kids. It went on at my school but I wasn't really assaulted - had my 'shirt tucked in' a few times by one particular Priest who shall remain nameless (he would wait outside the changing rooms after 1st and 2nd year games lessons and ensure that 'everyone had their shirt tucked in'. I know lads who had much worse but I won't talk about that because that is their story, not mine to tell.

 

You might think that this explains my atheism, bnt it isn't that simple. I genuinely studied the religion because it intrigued me. I knew from an early age that there had to be more than the basic message. Clearly the message given to the 'plebs' was a load of nonsense. Virgin births, water into wine, transubstantiation - all that stuff was clearly the window dressing for the public and I knew there must be something more substantial for the 'insiders'. So I studied. I studied Aquinas, Augustine, Ockham, Erasmus; then moved on to more contemporary theologians like Butler, Kierkegaard and Newman. I thought I was getting close a couple of times - particularly with Kierkegaard - but then I realised that I was mistaking complexity for wisdom. Sure, Newman could make an interesting argument, but when you analysed it, not only was it pretty poor, in philosophical terms, it was actually monstrous. Here's one of Newman's quotes that really stuck in my head:

The Catholic Church holds it better for the Sun and Moon to drop from Heaven' date=' for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die from starvation in extremest agony ? than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.[/quote']

That is taken from his Apologia. The sheer fanatical evil of it would take some beating. Better everyone die in agony than one person tell a white lie? Wow!

 

That was actually a seminal moment (I would have been 15 at the time). It was like having a blindfold removed. I realised that I had been looking for subtlety and meaning where there actually was none. For all the theological sophistry and linguistic gymnastics, ultimately the emperor had no clothes. It took another year to completely convince myself, but after that time I was as certain as I could be that the Catholic religion was actually evil, not just wrong. I spent the next year checking out the 'opposition' - starting with Luther and working through Calvin and Zwingli and ending with the Liberal Theology movement of the early 20th century (Liberal Theology is hilarious rather than evil. If you ever want a good laugh then pick up some Tillich or Holloway and watch them tie themselves in semantic knots to avoid defining God as a 'thing' and thus avoid the central flaw of that definition*. They both end up with similar end-positions - God IS love (Holloway) or God IS the 'ground state' (Tillich). Ultimately their arguments fully acknowledge that God has no attributes and is not an entity (I kid you not). Now, to mere students of philosophy such as myself, I assume that if a x has no attributes and is not an entity then you may as well say that it doesn't exist. The fun is watching them try to avoid that basic conclusion by performing heroic feats of theological twisting and turning (they both fail).

 

So, at 17 I knew that Christianity was (depending on the sect) either evil or comical. I have debated Christianity with Jesuit theologians (the cream of Catholic 'thinkers'. Many of them are much more intelligent than I am but none of them could actually make a convincing defence of the faith. I have yet to see such a defence, though I do still look when I have time.

 

*if God is a thing, God is finite. An attribute is, in fact, a limit, so if God possesses ANY attributes then God is not omnipotent or omniscient. I can prove that in symbolic logic but it's a pain generating the symbols so I'll just give a quick example. A man with brown hair does not have black hair. The attribute 'brown hair' is a limit on the possible 'states' which the man can occupy. The same applies to any attribute.

 

On whether religion can be good for an individual - I'm still not convinced. I certainly know what you mean - I know quite a few people who's faith is at the centre of their being and without that faith they might well collapse into a heap of self-loathing, nihilism. The point is that THEY HAD TO LEARN THAT DEPENDENCE. They didn't just wake up one morning and independently discover God. They were indoctrinated with the notion of God, as we all are, from the time they could speak. If they lived in completely secular societies then they would never have been able to develop that dependence in the first place. I really don't see that dependence as a good thing - I see it as effectively little different to a drug habit. They are essentially abrogating their own responsibility for their life and handing it over to God. I think that is cowardly, unintelligent and actually childish. Sure, it may motivate them to do good works, be really nice people (I've met several Mormons and I have to say they were all really nice people) and enjoy their life, but it isn't much different to taking the blue pill. If your goal in life is just to be happy then get in the box and take the blue pill - it is a no-brainer. You will certainly be happier than if you took the red pill and stayed in the real world.

 

You didn't discriminate by calling religious people ignorant. You (over) generalised, but that isn't the same thing. Discrimination requires treating people differently based on their religion (or whatever factor). When I say that creationists are scientifically illiterate OR dishonest OR both, that is not discrimination. That is a statement which I can support logically - it is also empirically observed and tested. In other words it is as close to 'true' as any scientist can ever claim to be on any issue. Whether I then go on to discriminate against such people is a different issue.

 

Do you believe God exist? No - (belief = meaningless)

Belief is a Humpty-dumpty word*.

I like to distinguish between faith and belief. Belief is simply your position on something. it might be supported by evidence and what we would all normally call a fact. I believe that the sun is around 92.9 million miles from the earth. I doubt that belief is wrong, and many people would call it a fact. So belief is simply what you think - and it may or may not be based on rationality and evidence. So why do I call this belief and not fact? That is the scientist in me. I know that nothing can be absolutely proven outside closed systems of logic (ie tautologies such as mathematics or pure logic). You cannot 'prove' anything about the empirical world. You can establish that something is true with a level of certainty so high that only a nutcase would doubt it. If I tell you that jumping from a seven story building will kill you then I cannot absolutely proove it, but you would be mad to demand such proof and jump anyway :-) In general 'true' is not a word any scientist or empiricist should reach for - leave it for the mathematicians and logicians.

 

Faith is different. Faith is belief without, or even in spite of, evidence. Faith is a sub-set of belief. You probably do have a few things which you believe without evidence - most people do (including me). I would say that my goal is to keep such faith to a minimum, since I regard lack of evidence as a negative, not a positive and I much prefer to base decisions and opinions on evidence. In fact I can (and have) persuasively argue that any action taken on the basis of faith is unethical. I believe that people have a responsibility to inform themselves as well as they can before taking decisions - especially if such decisions impact on others, but even if they do not do so directly. We would not accept a pilot or driver who operated on faith - I would be off the plane before the door closed. I want my pilots and drivers to operate on experience and knowledge if that is OK with everyone :-) I cannot see any decision that is better made from a standpoint of ignorance. Now, of course, some decisions taken on a 'hunch' or on faith will pay-off - that is simple statistics in action. That does not make the decision process ethical or right - a pilot who trusted in his Mojo or his God might well make a fantastic landing - I still wouldn't be on the plane :-)

 

*"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

[truefusion 3]

But the view at the time was that Judgement day was imminent. Most of the early Christian sects were millenialists - they believed that judgement day would happen sooner rather than later. The fact that it didn't is a weakness in the bible, not in the critique.

 

Yes, there were many who believed it would occur in their life time, even today many do, but that doesn't mean we should therefore assume that is what was meant in the text. For what does the Bible say about Judgement Day? It says no one but God knows of the hour and day of when it will occur. In what way then would it seem logical to entrust the definite hour and day to those who think it would occur within their life time?

 

Also, it would be counter-intuitive if salvation is not eternal. If salvation was temporary, those who are saved would be no better off than those who aren't.

 

*if God is a thing, God is finite. An attribute is, in fact, a limit, so if God possesses ANY attributes then God is not omnipotent or omniscient. I can prove that in symbolic logic but it's a pain generating the symbols so I'll just give a quick example. A man with brown hair does not have black hair. The attribute 'brown hair' is a limit on the possible 'states' which the man can occupy. The same applies to any attribute.

I know that this part is part of another conversation you were having (though it is irrelevant to the topic), but i seek to post a comment on it.

 

Your argument works in reverse. It should not be the case that a limit defines an attribute, but the attribute defining the limit. Also, a "limit on possible states" is not a limit on the attribute itself. Can God have attributes that make Him have unlimited power and knowledge? Yes. Does the inability of having a weaker and ignorant state, therefore, prevent Him from being omniscient or omnipotent? No. So God is able to "occupy" every "state" except that which contradicts omniscience and omnipotence.

 

By the way, a man with brown hair can indeed have black hair. Of course, not naturally (unless perhaps a new drug were to come out that can issue such a permanent biological change), but certainly can have different colors of hair.

[Bikerman 2]

I know that this part is part of another conversation you were having (though it is irrelevant to the topic), but i seek to post a comment on it.
Your argument works in reverse. It should not be the case that a limit defines an attribute, but the attribute defining the limit. Also, a "limit on possible states" is not a limit on the attribute itself. Can God have attributes that make Him have unlimited power and knowledge? Yes. Does the inability of having a weaker and ignorant state, therefore, prevent Him from being omniscient or omnipotent? No. So God is able to "occupy" every "state" except that which contradicts omniscience and omnipotence.

This is illogical.
Consider 2 states - Alive and dead. Neither, at first glance, contradicts omniscience or omnipotence. It is as possible for a non-living thing to possess both as it is for a living thing (a super super computer if you like). The states are mutually exclusive. If God is alive then God cannot logically be dead - the latter is ruled-out by the former. The same is true for every possible attribute. Any attribute automatically rules out a potential infinity of others. Brown hair rules out potentially infinite other shades.
The attribute defines the limit. A limit cannot define an attribute. For example, a limit is the fact that a person may not simultaneously have brown and blond hair (having 'both' is neither). That does not tell you anything about the hair-colour of a person.
Unlimited power is itself a contradiction, normally highlighted by the old question - can God create a weight he cannot lift?

By the way, a man with brown hair can indeed have black hair. Of course, not naturally (unless perhaps a new drug were to come out that can issue such a permanent biological change), but certainly can have different colors of hair.

Then the hair is not brown. The hair is either brown or not brown. That particular attribute can change with time, but that is not possible for God, since God is eternal and unchanging according to Christian theology, and in any case it is not important - at any time the attribute 'brown hair' limits the person from occupying any other state of hair colour.If we then talk about intrinsic attributes, then this limits God even further. If God has attributes which are part of 'godness' then they cannot change without 'godness' changing.
Edited January 4, 2011 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

This is illogical.

Consider 2 states - Alive and dead. Neither, at first glance, contradicts omniscience or omnipotence. It is as possible for a non-living thing to possess both as it is for a living thing (a super super computer if you like). The states are mutually exclusive. If God is alive then God cannot logically be dead - the latter is ruled-out by the former. The same is true for every possible attribute. Any attribute automatically rules out a potential infinity of others. Brown hair rules out potentially infinite other shades.

The attribute defines the limit. A limit cannot define an attribute. For example, a limit is the fact that a person may not simultaneously have brown and blond hair (having 'both' is neither). That does not tell you anything about the hair-colour of a person.

Unlimited power is itself a contradiction, normally highlighted by the old question - can God create a weight he cannot lift?

 

Then the hair is not brown. The hair is either brown or not brown. That particular attribute can change with time, but that is not possible for God, since God is eternal and unchanging according to Christian theology, and in any case it is not important - at any time the attribute 'brown hair' limits the person from occupying any other state of hair colour.

If we then talk about intrinsic attributes, then this limits God even further. If God has attributes which are part of 'godness' then they cannot change without 'godness' changing.

 

Would it be accurate to say that you are saying that God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent because He cannot be weak and ignorant? Perhaps you are assuming that terms like "omnipotence" and "omniscience" implies not having any limits in general. If that is the case, i could understand why someone would get that impression, but omnipotence just implies not having a limit on power, and omniscience implies not having a limit on knowledge.

 

A person with brown hair cannot have another shade of hair if and only if we are talking about every strand of hair on their body, but the original statement would have to be modified in order to prevent the other possibilities it allows. If the person were to so choose to paint the hair on one side of their body a different color and leave the other half its original color, it cannot be said that the person has neither color. Indeed, "both" is not a color (by practical means), but it would be inaccurate to say that they do not have, for example, brown and yellow hair. Can it not be said that he has brown hair? Can it not be said that he has yellow hair? Stating that he has either, in this case, would evaluate to true.

 

Omnipotence is not self-contradicting, only the "old question" is. As i have told you before, its fallacy is of contrary premises leading to the same conclusion:

He can => He isn't omnipotent.

He can't => He isn't omnipotent.

Logically, this cannot be the case, because logic requires that mutually exclusive premises lead to mutually exclusive conclusions. Therefore God is capable of both attributes, as He is described to have.

[Bikerman 2]

Would it be accurate to say that you are saying that God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent because He cannot be weak and ignorant? Perhaps you are assuming that terms like "omnipotence" and "omniscience" implies not having any limits in general. If that is the case, i could understand why someone would get that impression, but omnipotence just implies not having a limit on power, and omniscience implies not having a limit on knowledge.

Not having a limit is the way I interpret the words.

Omnipotence is not self-contradicting, only the "old question" is. As i have told you before, its fallacy is of contrary premises leading to the same conclusion:

He can => He isn't omnipotent.

He can't => He isn't omnipotent.

Logically, this cannot be the case, because logic requires that mutually exclusive premises lead to mutually exclusive conclusions. Therefore God is capable of both attributes, as He is described to have.

 

So God is subject to the 'laws of Logic'? Interesting. If God is subject to the laws of logic it follows that they pre-date God. Since God is supposed to be eternal then when did the laws of Logic come into being? The laws of logic are dependant on our spacetime. What is logically impossible in our particular universe need not be logically impossible in another.

 

In fact the 'laws of logic' vary, even within this universe. Let's take your example of mutually exclusive premises.

Brian is in Bolton and Brian is in Manchester. You would, presumably, agree that if those statements are made in the same instant that they are mutually exclusive? (ie a person cannot be in two distinct places at the same time).

But that only applied to people, it is not a universal. Sub-atomic particles can and do 'exist' in several places at once.

 

As it happens, however, I don't need to rely on this argument in order to refute the notions of omnipotence and omniscience.

Proof 1. If God is omnipotent and omniscience then God cannot be wholly good.

(a) Being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would bedevil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about;

(b ) Being omnipotent, God need not have created that world but could have chosen to create one containing no evil whatever; and

© By virtue of his failure to exercise that option, God should be held responsible for every evil that exists in the world he did create.

 

Proof 2. God cannot make me love him with my own free will.

 

Proof 3. By definition, omniscience demands the knowledge of everything - including the past, present, and future. If God knows what is going to happen in the future, God is not able to omnipotently change the future because the future is limited to what God knows will happen. If a God can omnipotently change the future, then God could have not known about the future in the first place.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

So God is subject to the 'laws of Logic'? Interesting. If God is subject to the laws of logic it follows that they pre-date God. Since God is supposed to be eternal then when did the laws of Logic come into being? The laws of logic are dependant on our spacetime. What is logically impossible in our particular universe need not be logically impossible in another.

 

In fact the 'laws of logic' vary, even within this universe. Let's take your example of mutually exclusive premises.

Brian is in Bolton and Brian is in Manchester. You would, presumably, agree that if those statements are made in the same instant that they are mutually exclusive? (ie a person cannot be in two distinct places at the same time).

But that only applied to people, it is not a universal. Sub-atomic particles can and do 'exist' in several places at once.

Subject-to does not necessarily imply pre-dating, especially if we assume that the "laws of logic" are dependent on our spacetime (though this assumption is not required anyway). I wouldn't think it unreasonable, though, to believe that God instilled logic within us for us to notice and put to use (to say that conscious effort is required for the use of logic).

 

Although there are ways around each example you provide for mutual exclusives, i would agree they would contradict each other or other knowledge. Even so, i would for that matter claim they cannot both be true, eventhough assuming they are both the same Brian, that Bolton and Manchester are not aliases of the same place, and that these particles are one in the same where science is not limited in being able to distinguish the particle between other particles, even if it denies or contradicts other scientific knowledge.

 

As it happens, however, I don't need to rely on this argument in order to refute the notions of omnipotence and omniscience.

Proof 1. If God is omnipotent and omniscience then God cannot be wholly good.

(a) Being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would bedevil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about;

(b ) Being omnipotent, God need not have created that world but could have chosen to create one containing no evil whatever; and

© By virtue of his failure to exercise that option, God should be held responsible for every evil that exists in the world he did create.

 

Proof 2. God cannot make me love him with my own free will.

 

Proof 3. By definition, omniscience demands the knowledge of everything - including the past, present, and future. If God knows what is going to happen in the future, God is not able to omnipotently change the future because the future is limited to what God knows will happen. If a God can omnipotently change the future, then God could have not known about the future in the first place.

 

For "proof 1." Eventhough omnipotence is irrelevant as to whether or not God need(n't) create, if we are to use terms like virtue?to imply (high) moral standards?, we would realize the accusation of evil placed on God is unjustified. For simply bearing knowledge of something does not automatically place responsibility on God just 'cause one course of action lead to something deemed dreadful. For if intentions were to be disregarded out of any accusation, i cannot agree that any formal justice or criticism of the situation has occurred. Further evidence of false accusation is seen when reading "he did create." On the contrary, what He did create was a creature pure and without sin ("in His image"). Just 'cause this very creature eventually committed wrong does not mean that God created an evil creature.

 

For "proof 2." How so? Can He not make you hate Him with your own free will? How does that mean He cannot make you love Him with your own free will?

 

For "proof 3." So Him knowing that His omnipotence will cause or change the future is not possible for Him? I am curious as to how His own knowledge of His own actions prohibit Him from making use of His omnipotence to make a change in the future. Do you mean He cannot take back a potential action due to His knowledge? Is it not the case that knowledge given from omniscience makes potential actions irrelevant? So why would we consider potential actions for omniscience? Whatever it is that you meant, i'll leave for your response.