Questions on Christianity: (New Question on page 3)

[Mr. Magoo]

I could respond to any of the replies above. If anybody is wanting a reply then ask, but I'm afraid I'll be repeating what I've already said.

New Question:

Everybody knows the story of when Jesus told Peter that Peter would betray him. "Before the cock crows, you shall deny me thrice"

So the question is, "Did Peter really have a choice whether to deny Jesus, once Jesus said that?"

Let's say that Peter lived to be 100, and never denied Jesus after that time when Jesus said it. That means that what Jesus said was false. If Jesus knows all things, then Jesus had to have known what he said would be false (if peter never denied knowing Jesus). If Jesus had said something to be true that he knew was false, then this is a lie. But Jesus cannot lie, right?

So that means that Peter had to have denied Jesus in order to prevent Jesus from telling a lie. If Peter could not not deny Jesus, then Peter could not have done otherwise except denying Jesus. If peter could not have done otherwise, then peter had to have denied Jesus.

If peter had to deny Jesus, then why should we hold him accountable or blameworthy? It was impossible for Peter to do otherwise than what he did, so why blame him?

If Jesus did not want Peter to deny him, then why would he say to Peter that peter would deny him? If Jesus had instead said "peter, you will never deny knowing me" then by definition of Jesus knowing the future, and Jesus not being able to tell a lie, Peter could never had denied knowing Jesus, right?

 

[loco]

I could respond to any of the replies above. If anybody is wanting a reply then ask, but I'm afraid I'll be repeating what I've already said.

New Question:

Everybody knows the story of when Jesus told Peter that Peter would betray him. "Before the cock crows, you shall deny me thrice"

So the question is, "Did Peter really have a choice whether to deny Jesus, once Jesus said that?"

Let's say that Peter lived to be 100, and never denied Jesus after that time when Jesus said it. That means that what Jesus said was false. If Jesus knows all things, then Jesus had to have known what he said would be false (if peter never denied knowing Jesus). If Jesus had said something to be true that he knew was false, then this is a lie. But Jesus cannot lie, right?

So that means that Peter had to have denied Jesus in order to prevent Jesus from telling a lie. If Peter could not not deny Jesus, then Peter could not have done otherwise except denying Jesus. If peter could not have done otherwise, then peter had to have denied Jesus.

If peter had to deny Jesus, then why should we hold him accountable or blameworthy? It was impossible for Peter to do otherwise than what he did, so why blame him?

If Jesus did not want Peter to deny him, then why would he say to Peter that peter would deny him? If Jesus had instead said "peter, you will never deny knowing me" then by definition of Jesus knowing the future, and Jesus not being able to tell a lie, Peter could never had denied knowing Jesus, right?

 

What?  Is you joking or something?   

[Mr. Magoo]

What?  Is you joking or something?   

no i'm serious.

It was, by default, impossible for Peter to not deny Jesus after Jesus had told him that he would.

if peter never denied Jesus, then that means Jesus lied, and Jesus cant lie.

Right?

[loco]

Peter did deny Jesus, and would have denied Jesus either way because Peter was a weak believer at the time.  Jesus simply knew the future.  Denying Jesus, then repenting, was actually a good thing since it made Peter a very strong and brave believer, and a leader among the apostles.

[Mr. Magoo]

Peter did deny Jesus, and would have denied Jesus either way because Peter was a weak believer at the time.  Jesus simply knew the future.  Denying Jesus, then repenting, was actually a good thing since it made Peter a very strong and brave believer, and a leader among the apostles.

I don't think it's fair to say that Peter "would have done it anyway." Peter was never given a chance not to do it. It was predetermined for him to do it. Do you think it's fair to peter for Jesus to manipulate peter's guilt over something peter could not have avoided?

A similar argument would be: If I asked Jesus (or God, whatever term you want to use) if my great great grandson will be saved. Assuming that Jesus answers, and says no. That means my great great grandson will never have the chance to accept Jesus. This is because if he did accept Jesus, then that means that Jesus lied to me, and Jesus can't lie. Jesus can't lie like the Oracle from the Matrix and only tell Neo what he needs to hear. So why should my great great grandson be held responsible for not believing in Jesus, if it was never possible to begin with? You can't say that my great great grandson is a weak person and wouldn't believe in Jesus anyways, because my great great grandson doesn't exist right now.

In the case of Peter denying Jesus, we have a similar case to the example I gave in the previous paragraph. In both cases, Jesus decides to answer and tell what the future will be. I used the example of Peter because it is a real case of blame being assigned to a deterministic reality. Most people blame peter for denying Jesus, I haven't heard anyone praise Peter for it.

[Butterbean]

A similar argument would be: If I asked Jesus (or God, whatever term you want to use) if my great great grandson will be saved. Assuming that Jesus answers, and says no. That means my great great grandson will never have the chance to accept Jesus.

How does this mean he "will never have the chance to accept Jesus?"

Isn't it true that he could have had the chance and rejected it?

[Mr. Magoo]

How does this mean he "will never have the chance to accept Jesus?"

Isn't it true that he could have had the chance and rejected it?

my great great grandson has not yet rejected Jesus, because my great great grandson does not yet exist.

[Butterbean]

my great great grandson has not yet rejected Jesus, because my great great grandson does not yet exist.

How is that relevant

Jesus knowing the future and saying your great great grandson will not be saved does not exclude the possibility that the reason he was not saved is not that he didn't ever have the chance to accept Him, but that he could have had the chance and rejected Him.

[Mr. Magoo]

How is that relevant

Jesus knowing the future and saying your great great grandson will not be saved does not exclude the possibility that the reason he was not saved is not that he didn't ever have the chance to accept Him, but that he could have rejected Him.

I think it does. It's not that he's predicting the outcome of a future free will event. The free will part is erased before the person is even born. The great great grandson never, at any point in his lifetime, has free will to accept Jesus if Jesus answers me like that. Jesus isn't telling about an event that happened in the past as a result of free will, which I think is how you're interpreting this. Jesus is telling about a future event. My great great grandson denying Jesus has not already happend when I ask Jesus whether or not he will be saved. That would mean that my great great grandson would have to exist before he comes to exist, which is impossible.

[loco]

I don't think it's fair to say that Peter "would have done it anyway." Peter was never given a chance not to do it. It was predetermined for him to do it. Do you think it's fair to peter for Jesus to manipulate peter's guilt over something peter could not have avoided?

A similar argument would be: If I asked Jesus (or God, whatever term you want to use) if my great great grandson will be saved. Assuming that Jesus answers, and says no. That means my great great grandson will never have the chance to accept Jesus. This is because if he did accept Jesus, then that means that Jesus lied to me, and Jesus can't lie. Jesus can't lie like the Oracle from the Matrix and only tell Neo what he needs to hear. So why should my great great grandson be held responsible for not believing in Jesus, if it was never possible to begin with? You can't say that my great great grandson is a weak person and wouldn't believe in Jesus anyways, because my great great grandson doesn't exist right now.

In the case of Peter denying Jesus, we have a similar case to the example I gave in the previous paragraph. In both cases, Jesus decides to answer and tell what the future will be. I used the example of Peter because it is a real case of blame being assigned to a deterministic reality. Most people blame peter for denying Jesus, I haven't heard anyone praise Peter for it.

You are accusing Jesus of making Peter deny him.  That is false.  And Peter did not feel guilty about denying Jesus before denying Jesus. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Jesus, Peter did not believe that he would.  Peter assured Jesus that he would never deny him.

[Mr. Magoo]

You are accusing Jesus of making Peter deny him.  That is false.  And Peter did not feel guilty about denying Jesus before denying Jesus. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Jesus, Peter did not believe that he would.  Peter assured Jesus that he would never deny him.

Why is it false that Jesus didn't make Peter deny him? You didn't explain why it was false.

Let's assume that free will exists. Then it would have been best for Jesus to never tell Peter that Peter would deny him, right? If Jesus had never said anything at all, then Peter either A) Could have denied Jesus or B) Could have not denied Jesus. BUT Because Jesus told peter that he would deny him, option B was eliminated. Why was it eliminated? Because it became impossible for Peter to do Option B. Why was it impossible for peter to do option B? Because if Peter did do option B, then Jesus would have knowingly told a lie, but Jesus cannot lie. Therefore, Option B was impossible for Peter to do, which leaves only Option A. Therefore, Peter HAD to deny Jesus once Jesus told him that he would.

In regard to your 3rd sentence. I never said Peter felt guilty about denying Jesus before he did it. That would mean Peter knew it beforehand, which he didn't. I'm saying that Peter DID feel guilty AFTER denying Jesus, and it is this guilt that led him to become a better leader and better apostle. That's what you said earlier. But this guilt should not have existed in Peter, because Peter could not have done otherwise than what he did. I asked you if you thought it was fair for Jesus to put false guilt into Peter in order to get Peter to become a better person.

[Butterbean]

Why is it false that Jesus didn't make Peter deny him? You didn't explain why it was false.

Let's assume that free will exists. Then it would have been best for Jesus to never tell Peter that Peter would deny him, right? If Jesus had never said anything at all, then Peter either A) Could have denied Jesus or B) Could have not denied Jesus. BUT Because Jesus told peter that he would deny him, option B was eliminated. Why was it eliminated? Because it became impossible for Peter to do Option B. Why was it impossible for peter to do option B? Because if Peter did do option B, then Jesus would have knowingly told a lie, but Jesus cannot lie. Therefore, Option B was impossible for Peter to do, which leaves only Option A. Therefore, Peter HAD to deny Jesus once Jesus told him that he would.

In regard to your 3rd sentence. I never said Peter felt guilty about denying Jesus before he did it. That would mean Peter knew it beforehand, which he didn't. I'm saying that Peter DID feel guilty AFTER denying Jesus, and it is this guilt that led him to become a better leader and better apostle. That's what you said earlier. But this guilt should not have existed in Peter, because Peter could not have done otherwise than what he did. I asked you if you thought it was fair for Jesus to put false guilt into Peter in order to get Peter to become a better person.

Magoo, God (Jesus) is not bound by time and space. 

You probably know that the book of Revelation focuses much on the future.  Do you think since it is written like that, that is the reason that the forces will gather at the Mount of Megiddo because it says so? 

It is known to God...Who knows all...past, present and future.  And so He has told us in the book of Revelation.

[Butterbean]

Magoo, I've heard some people say that God sees time (and occasions that it envelops) as sort of a "parade"....He sees the beginning, the middle, the end and everything in between ...while we are in the middle somewhere only being able to see that which is immediately surrounding us....

Not sure if that helps or not.

[Mr. Magoo]

Magoo, God (Jesus) is not bound by time and space. 

You probably know that the book of Revelation focuses much on the future.  Do you think since it is written like that, that is the reason that the forces will gather at the Mount of Meggido because it says so? 

It is known to God...Who knows all...past, present and future.  And so He has told us in the book of Revelation.

Yes I do. For example, if 10 Billion years ago, someone (lets assume someone existed) asked God what kind of shirt you would be wearing today at whatever time you posted that post on getbig. Let's say God says a black plain tshirt. Did you freely choose this morning what shirt you put on? Are you saying that you could have just as easily wore a red shirt, or a blue shirt, etc? I'm saying no. Those options were not available to you. They might seem available to you in real time in your world. But in the grand scheme of things, ever since you was born, even long before you was born, you was going to wear a black shirt today. It wasn't up to you. It was determined before your free will existed. Your free will didn't exist before you were born. No matter what choices you made, no matter what you did or how you acted, you were going to be wearing a black plain tshirt when you typed that post.

[Mr. Magoo]

Magoo, I've heard some people say that God sees time (and occasions that it envelops) as sort of a "parade"....He sees the beginning, the middle, the end and everything in between ...while we are in the middle somewhere only being able to see that which is immediately surrounding us....

Not sure if that helps or not.

I don't think God is merely watching a parade. God made and designed the parade.

I think saying that God is merely a watcher who knows the movie of time by heart is taking a deist approach, and not a theist approach. We have to keep in mind, if talking about theism, that God carefully made the movie of time

[loco]

I don't think it's fair to say that Peter "would have done it anyway." Peter was never given a chance not to do it. It was predetermined for him to do it. Do you think it's fair to peter for Jesus to manipulate peter's guilt over something peter could not have avoided?

A similar argument would be: If I asked Jesus (or God, whatever term you want to use) if my great great grandson will be saved. Assuming that Jesus answers, and says no. That means my great great grandson will never have the chance to accept Jesus. This is because if he did accept Jesus, then that means that Jesus lied to me, and Jesus can't lie. Jesus can't lie like the Oracle from the Matrix and only tell Neo what he needs to hear. So why should my great great grandson be held responsible for not believing in Jesus, if it was never possible to begin with? You can't say that my great great grandson is a weak person and wouldn't believe in Jesus anyways, because my great great grandson doesn't exist right now.

In the case of Peter denying Jesus, we have a similar case to the example I gave in the previous paragraph. In both cases, Jesus decides to answer and tell what the future will be. I used the example of Peter because it is a real case of blame being assigned to a deterministic reality. Most people blame peter for denying Jesus, I haven't heard anyone praise Peter for it.

You seem have an obsession with unfairness and with accusing God of being unfair and unjust in your posts.  What happened to you?

I don't know if you are an atheist, agnostic or non-Bible believing theist just trying to sound deep or just trying to stir things up, but I for one do not view God as unfair and unjust.  And I have been a devout Christians for many years and have read and studied the Bible for a very long time. 

You want fair?  You want to get what you deserve?  According to the Bible, you and I have sinned and deserve Hell, but by God's grace, He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins so that we may have eternal life.  I don't know about you, but I don't want what I deserve.  I prefer God's grace and mercy.

[Mr. Magoo]

You seem have an obsession with unfairness and with accusing God of being unfair and unjust in your posts.  What happened to you?

I don't know if you are an atheist, agnostic or non-Bible believing theist just trying to sound deep or just trying to stir things up, but I for one do not view God as unfair and unjust.  And I have been a devout Christians for many years and have read and studied the Bible for a very long time. 

You want fair?  You want to get what you deserve?  According to the Bible, you and I have sinned and deserve Hell, but by God's grace, He sent His Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins so that we may have eternal life.  I don't know about you, but I don't want what I deserve.  I prefer God's grace and mercy.

I don't think it's fair to insult those who ask questions. You overlook the fact that everything I say assumes the Bible to be 100% accurate. I never say that the Bible is false. What I do is assume the Bible is 100% accurate, and see how that matches up with our own personal beliefs. Sadly to say, those are inconsistent a lot. With everything I've said, I've started with the assumption that what the bible says is true, and then see what consequences that brings. I don't think a majority of Christians spend enough time thinking about what they believe in. It is after all, the most important beliefs they could ever have, right? I think most people just convince themselves of believing in Jesus, and then hide behind the sanctity of that belief for the remainder of their lives, and whenever any discussion comes up, they repeat over and over the main catchphrase of "Well I know that I've believed on Jesus Christ as my savior and his grace is sufficient for all things". I think taking that approach is nothing short of laziness.

[Butterbean]

Yes I do. For example, if 10 Billion years ago, someone (lets assume someone existed) asked God what kind of shirt you would be wearing today at whatever time you posted that post on getbig. Let's say God says a black plain tshirt. Did you freely choose this morning what shirt you put on? Are you saying that you could have just as easily wore a red shirt, or a blue shirt, etc? I'm saying no. Those options were not available to you. They might seem available to you in real time in your world. But in the grand scheme of things, ever since you was born, even long before you was born, you was going to wear a black shirt today. It wasn't up to you. It was determined before your free will existed. Your free will didn't exist before you were born. No matter what choices you made, no matter what you did or how you acted, you were going to be wearing a black plain tshirt when you typed that post.

We think very differently.   

I see your scenario like this:

God said 10 billion years ago I would be wearing a black shirt when I typed that post.

You take this to mean I had no other option than to wear a black shirt.

I see the situation as God can see the future and knew I would be wearing a black shirt.  Although I have many black shirts, I do have other options in my wardrobe.  I personally had picked a black one that day and God, 10 billion years ago and being able to see the past present and future knew I would be wearing a black shirt and so stated.

(My shirt was actually brown )





Magoo, do you think that God makes happen everything that happens?  Including child abuse, etc?   If so, do you not believe in the concept of personal responsibility?

[Mr. Magoo]

I see your scenario like this:

God said 10 billion years ago I would be wearing a black shirt when I typed that post.

You take this to mean I had no other option than to wear a black shirt.

I see the situation as God can see the future and knew I would be wearing a black shirt.  Although I have many black shirts, I do have other options in my wardrobe.  I personally had picked a black one that day and God, 10 billion years ago and being able to see the past present and future knew I would be wearing a black shirt and so stated.

I understand your point, But I disagree. I think we are disagreeing about meaings of the word "determinism".

I think this article addresses the definition points we're disagreeing over. I'm reading it now so I might edit this post correcting myself, but until I finish reading it I'll leave it up here.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

[loco]

I don't think it's fair to insult those who ask questions. You overlook the fact that everything I say assumes the Bible to be 100% accurate. I never say that the Bible is false. What I do is assume the Bible is 100% accurate, and see how that matches up with our own personal beliefs. Sadly to say, those are inconsistent a lot. With everything I've said, I've started with the assumption that what the bible says is true, and then see what consequences that brings. I don't think a majority of Christians spend enough time thinking about what they believe in. It is after all, the most important beliefs they could ever have, right? I think most people just convince themselves of believing in Jesus, and then hide behind the sanctity of that belief for the remainder of their lives, and whenever any discussion comes up, they repeat over and over the main catchphrase of "Well I know that I've believed on Jesus Christ as my savior and his grace is sufficient for all things". I think taking that approach is nothing short of laziness.

You don't think it's fair?   LOL    

I'm not insulting you, just making an observation.  By your logic, everything else you just posted is a blanket statement and an insult to Christians in general.

Nothing wrong with asking questions and having interesting discussions.  I don't believe in extraterrestrials and I don't believe in ghosts, but I do enjoy discussing those two topics very much.

Back to the discussion.  When you say Jesus made Peter deny him, I still don't see where you are getting that from.  Are you saying that you know Jesus manipulated Peter, or are you saying that you see this as a possibility?  If you are assuming that the Bible is true and 100% accurate, then please show me where it says that Jesus manipulated Peter and made Peter deny him!

[Mr. Magoo]

Magoo, do you think that God makes happen everything that happens?  Including child abuse, etc?   If so, do you not believe in the concept of personal responsibility?

That's a very tricky question but I'll give a short answer. Leibniz believed that child abuse, although evil, is a necessary part of life in order for us to have the greatest life possible. Similar to how a particular corner of a painting might be ugly by itself, but once the whole painting is viewed, the painting is the most beautiful it could possibly be. I believe this is how most christians deal with problems such as child abuse: "Yes its evil, but God has a plan, our feeble minds can't comprehend, etc"

On the note of personal responsibility. Even in a deterministic universe, the mere fact that it is deterministic does not eliminate personal responsibility. Some believe the two are compatible. For example, I doubt you believe your dog has free will like you do. He/she has instinct and acts on those. But you would still punish your dog if he/she did something horrible. There is a paper by Harry Frankfurt (who is a compatibilist (meaning he believes both a deterministic universe and personal responsibility can exist together)) where he gives several thought experiments to show that is the case. Also, a large majority of new studies done shows that people have a natural tendency to be a compatibilist, instead of automatically thinking "well if it's predetermined, why is he held responsible?."

[Mr. Magoo]

Back to the discussion.  When you say Jesus made Peter deny him, I still don't see where you are getting that from.  Are you saying that you know Jesus manipulated Peter, or are you saying that you see this as a possibility?  If you are assuming that the Bible is true and 100% accurate, then please show me where it says that Jesus manipulated Peter and made Peter deny him!

I'm trying to explain how in a deterministic universe, one and only one outcome (D1) is possible at any given time (T1). What's the easiest way I can explain this. First of all I am not saying I know that Jesus manipulated Peter, I just asked if he did, do you think it's fair. It never says he doesn't, so it is of course a possibility right?

Let's see if this will help. Imagine that Jesus told Peter one morning that "By this time next week, you will deny me 3 times." Peter of course thinks "what? No i wont. I don't want to deny you, so why would i?" So Peter tells a friend of his later on that day about it, and the friend asks, "Well, are you going to deny him?"  Peter responds "I don't want to, but he's all powerful and cant lie, so I guess i have to." The friend could say "well, why don't you try being a better person in between now and next week, maybe you can prevent it?"  Peter would have to respond saying "No matter how good of a person I try to become, no matter how much I really don't want to do it, by next week I have to deny him 3 times."

I know that was a silly imaginary conversation but do you get the point? Peter could not free-will himself out of it. Peter could have spent the next 6 days locked in a room praying 20 hours a day, but at some point before the week ended, Peter had to deny Jesus 3 times. Like for example, Jesus told peter before he was arrested that peter would deny him right? But when Jesus was arrested Peter cut the soldier's ear off. It was only later that Peter denied Jesus. So, was it possible for that soldier to kill peter in the garden that night? No it wasn't, because it was determined for peter to deny Jesus 3 times, which hadn't happen yet. So it was impossible for that soldier to kill Peter in the garden. It's similar to what I was saying earlier, certain options are eliminated.

[loco]

Let's see if this will help. Imagine that Jesus told Peter one morning that "By this time next week, you will deny me 3 times." Peter of course thinks "what? No i wont. I don't want to deny you, so why would i?" So Peter tells a friend of his later on that day about it, and the friend asks, "Well, are you going to deny him?"  Peter responds "I don't want to, but he's all powerful and cant lie, so I guess i have to." The friend could say "well, why don't you try being a better person in between now and next week, maybe you can prevent it?"  Peter would have to respond saying "No matter how good of a person I try to become, no matter how much I really don't want to do it, by next week I have to deny him 3 times."

See highlighted text.  I guess this is where we disagree, can't see eye to eye.  I just don't understand your logic, nothing wrong with that.  We just think differently.  Why would Peter or anyone say something like that?  If Jesus told me that I was going to deny him a few hours into the future, I would want to prove Jesus wrong.  I know, he is Jesus, right?  He can't be wrong.  But that is just what I would try to do anyway.  

Now, if Jesus told me that in a few hours I was going to turn myself in and die with Jesus, then I would try to prove him right.  

I thought that's what anyone in Peter's position would do, until reading your post.

I do get what you are saying about a deterministic universe.  I have read about this a little.  There was a very old movie about a tattooed man whose tattoos where magical. The tattooed man told another man not to stare at his tattoos while he slept because anyone who stared at his tattoos would see his/her near future and that was not a good thing for some reason.  The tattooed man fell asleep and the other man stared at one of the tattoos.  While starring, the other man saw his future.  He saw the tattooed man strangling him to death.  The man panicked, picked up a rock and hit the tattooed man on the head.  The tattooed man woke up and strangled the other man to death because the other man was trying to kill the tattooed with a rock.

Very interesting stuff, but I don't believe it.

[Mr. Magoo]

New Question (Easter Related):

Pretty simple and straightforward

I hear people talking about waiting for 2nd coming of Jesus. During the rapture, or after the rapture, before the tribulation, or whatever order of events that are going to take place. But wouldn't it be the 3rd coming of Jesus? Jesus was born (1), Jesus rose out of the tomb on the 3rd day (2), so when Jesus comes back again, wouldn't it be the 3rd time?

I've always heard people talking about the 2nd coming though.

 

[loco]

New Question (Easter Related):

Pretty simple and straightforward

I hear people talking about waiting for 2nd coming of Jesus. During the rapture, or after the rapture, before the tribulation, or whatever order of events that are going to take place. But wouldn't it be the 3rd coming of Jesus? Jesus was born (1), Jesus rose out of the tomb on the 3rd day (2), so when Jesus comes back again, wouldn't it be the 3rd time?

I've always heard people talking about the 2nd coming though.

 

I don't remember reading in the Bible about Jesus' "second" coming, just about Jesus' return.  As for some people calling it the second coming, it all depends on what they mean by that, second time his body touches the earth, second time Jesus comes from Heaven, etc.  If you want to go by the number of times Jesus was alive on earth, then yes, I guess you could call it his third coming to earth.