"AlphaT" wrote:

No, he cares about you having faith in him. I did not say it was the same thing...its just that having faith in him is the top priority...and please do not say "Then you do not have to do good if you believe in him?"  Because I have already explained that God works through you when you accept him.  

So let's recap. He does not care if you do good without faith in him. He only cares if you have faith in him, and if you do, he will "work through you", making you good.

How's that free will going for you?

---

"Kerpele" wrote:

"AlphaT" wrote:

No, he cares about you having faith in him. I did not say it was the same thing...its just that having faith in him is the top priority...and please do not say "Then you do not have to do good if you believe in him?"  Because I have already explained that God works through you when you accept him.  

So let's recap. He does not care if you do good without faith in him. He only cares if you have faith in him, and if you do, he will "work through you", making you good.

How's that free will going for you?

First Part: Its not the matter of caring, because he loves you. Its the matter of you being spirituially with him. Would you want a woman who does thigns for you, or one who loves you and cares about you? And it wont make you good, it just purifies you. No one is good but the one who is sinless.

Second Part:

Free will with God is awesome!

---

"AlphaT" wrote:

First Part: Its not the matter of caring, because he loves you. Its the matter of you being spirituially with him. Would you want a woman who does thigns for you, or one who loves you and cares about you? And it wont make you good, it just purifies you. No one is good but the one who is sinless.

Second Part:

Free will with God is awesome!

I don't trust women enough to get involved with any kind of them.

Anyway, If he loved us, he wouldn't make us jump through hoops to receive his love. 

And how is it free will if he requires you to believe? Free will implies that you are free to do as you please, without restrictions. Yet god seems to have a problem with using said free will to ends other than his.

---

"Kerpele" wrote:

"AlphaT" wrote:

First Part: Its not the matter of caring, because he loves you. Its the matter of you being spirituially with him. Would you want a woman who does thigns for you, or one who loves you and cares about you? And it wont make you good, it just purifies you. No one is good but the one who is sinless.

Second Part:

Free will with God is awesome!

I don't trust women enough to get involved with any kind of them.

Anyway, If he loved us, he wouldn't make us jump through hoops to receive his love. 

And how is it free will if he requires you to believe? Free will implies that you are free to do as you please, without restrictions. Yet god seems to have a problem with using said free will to ends other than his.

Um...weird.

What hoops?

There is a difference between free will and  state of nature.

---

"AlphaT" wrote:

Um...weird.

What hoops?

There is a difference between free will and  state of nature.

The hoops I referred to were of course the requirements set for salvation.

Also, state of nature? Now the all powerful being doesn't decide what is and isn't natural? God seems to be losing power as this discussion continues.

---

"Kerpele" wrote:

"AlphaT" wrote:

Um...weird.

What hoops?

There is a difference between free will and  state of nature.

The hoops I referred to were of course the requirements set for salvation.

Also, state of nature? Now the all powerful being doesn't decide what is and isn't natural? God seems to be losing power as this discussion continues.

Oh, so asking for a gift is a hoop?

No, I was using state of nature as an example. As you can compare 2012 to that meteor that hit the dinosaurs, yet it does not mean 2012 well be a meteor. 

If you need it broken down farther...state of nature isnt real, but non relaistic thigns can be compared to realistic things.
Like Evolution, non realistic...to adaptation, realistic.

 

---

"AlphaT" wrote:

Oh, so asking for a gift is a hoop?

No, I was using state of nature as an example. As you can compare 2012 to that meteor that hit the dinosaurs, yet it does not mean 2012 well be a meteor. 

If you need it broken down farther...state of nature isnt real, but non relaistic thigns can be compared to realistic things.
Like Evolution, non realistic...to adaptation, realistic.

 

The term "unconditional love" means just what it says. Love without conditions in place. Asking for something in return is a condition.

As for the rest of your post, I cannot decipher it. And I have deciphered a lot of cryptic messages in my time.

---

"Kerpele" wrote:

"AlphaT" wrote:

Oh, so asking for a gift is a hoop?

No, I was using state of nature as an example. As you can compare 2012 to that meteor that hit the dinosaurs, yet it does not mean 2012 well be a meteor. 

If you need it broken down farther...state of nature isnt real, but non relaistic thigns can be compared to realistic things.
Like Evolution, non realistic...to adaptation, realistic.

 

The term "unconditional love" means just what it says. Love without conditions in place. Asking for something in return is a condition.

As for the rest of your post, I cannot decipher it. And I have deciphered a lot of cryptic messages in my time.

Your not getting his love. Your getting salvation.

Bottom Line: Dont use False Syllogisim. 

---

"AlphaT" wrote:

Your not getting his love. Your getting salvation.

Bottom Line: Dont use False Syllogisim. 

So his love does not come prepackaged with salvation? That's a pretty bad deal.

I was not aware that I was committed to a syllogism. Care to point out the exact argument that could be classified as such?

---

"Kerpele" wrote:

"AlphaT" wrote:

Your not getting his love. Your getting salvation.

Bottom Line: Dont use False Syllogisim. 

So his love does not come prepackaged with salvation? That's a pretty bad deal.

I was not aware that I was committed to a syllogism. Care to point out the exact argument that could be classified as such?

Just accept that you can't argue with AlphaT's infallible Godgic. 

---