Where does your heart lie?

[Zack Attack!]

You are right about that. And now I can see this is a serious debating section with strict set rules. Flame debates are kept in the SPAM forum then?

[Nocturne]

You are right about that. And now I can see this is a serious debating section with strict set rules. Flame debates are kept in the SPAM forum then?

Hyperbolic Flamechamber

[Zack Attack!]

Honestly? That is a dead forum from what I've seen, and it doesn't seem to have that many active members in it. I think I'll just go back to casual conversing.

[Nocturne]

Sucks for you. SPAM works as well.

Now, back on topic.

[RedCheetah]

Sucks for you. SPAM works as well.

Now, back on topic.

Just a moment.


k, now back on topic.

[Zack Attack!]

Sure does suck for me, I know. But what sucks for you, I wonder? I bet there are many things you aren't proud of about yourself you don't share with us, so you have to pry on people like me to feel better. Right? Oh well, I'll go ahead and cower to the SPAM just for you, because you obviously feel like a fucking king right now with your little mod debating circle parked right next to your cozy little mansion you conceited grouchy little fuck.

[Nocturne]

Sounds like fun.

So RC would you like to ban some lawful newbies tonight for fun in our nice e-Jaguar cars while wearing our e-sport coats and e-Rollex's?

[Zack Attack!]

I don't take shit from mods, not even section mods, so make use of your fucking powers while they still last you unbelievable cunt. Or you can quit being such a kyke and argue with me until we reach a verdict. I want to know how much of a hard ass you turn out to be. Or if you're just a stupid fat ass with a really large ego.

[RedCheetah]

Nocturne, you misunderstand, I am a moderator of acquired tastes. I would much rather watch the newbies slave in my mines on my 60" LCD in my mansion in the hills. You're more an...upper middle class moderator.

[Zack Attack!]

No, you should listen to this double nigger. Obviously he's been abusing his powers for quite some time, walking around like fucking hitler and lovin' every minute of it. happy fucking birthday nocturne, let's go burn some jews to celebrate.

[Nocturne]

Nocturne, you misunderstand, I am a moderator of acquired tastes. I would much rather watch the newbies slave in my mines on my 60" LCD in my mansion in the hills. You're more an...upper middle class moderator.

But you didn't hear the ending part of my plan. After banning the newbies I was going to burn them for body warmth whilst forcing the slaves from the Southlands to stand on the outskirts, away from the heat, and dig their own graves.

[RedCheetah]

Burning jews is a yuletide tradition where I grew up.

[Zack Attack!]

We all have our rituals then, don't we? A sacrificial chamber is in order here.

[The Editor]

You, Zack, Editor, you all completely suck at debating. You don't debate, you get into pissing matches and ignore anyone who doesn't look like an easy target.

Where's your evidence for this?

[Keke Le Cat]

It was an entirely serious question, you were trying to trap someone in their stupidity. You, Zack, Editor, you all completely suck at debating. You don't debate, you get into pissing matches and ignore anyone who doesn't look like an easy target.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=debate&gwp=13
1.) To consider something; deliberate.
2.) To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3.) To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See synonyms at discuss

That is exactly what we are doing, some of us who shall remain unnamed do not do it as proficiently as others. IE: One person makes a point, another person counters that with one of their own and so on and so forth. Really, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. You're a big boy. Try to keep up.

If I went into a long winded explanation of every single point I made every post would be so long that simpletons like the one we are dealing with would lose interest halfway through.

When talking with people on the internet you need to consider the add banners, and the fact that porn is only a click away. To keep someone's attention, keep it short and sweet. Otherwise they will get bored and say, "Oh! Shiny!" then frolic away to porntube.

Also, to make a blanket statement such as "God doesn't exist, here is my proof." or "God doesn't exist, I need no proof now everyone shut up." is just as ignorant as saying, "God exists and I need no proof now follow me to heaven."

Kittsuera: You haven't address the fact that the bible says that god preordained history yet you think I am somehow not fulfilling his "plan" for me. If it's all preordained, how can I fail to fulfill? He knows exactly what I will do, I am fated to make certain decisions. No matter what I do, I am doing what he planned for me.

[Keke Le Cat]

Ed, he stores the evidence in his jock strap. It's very small, but still he takes it out to play with it now and then.

[The Editor]

I don't see what's wrong with "God doesn't exist, and here's the proof." For sure it's untrue, because God is not an empirical* concept, but the statement is not ignorant, as a proof is at least attempted.

*sighs* Personal abuse is never a good way to debate...

*Testable through experience (I suspect it's actually more complicated than this, so look it up ).

[Kittsuera]

Predestination as defined in The Student Bible NIV; “doctrine that God has predetermined that all believers are saved through Christ.”

[Nocturne]

Biased source

[Keke Le Cat]

Check in a real dictionary. Heh.

[The Editor]

The Oxford Dictionary of English is by far the best dictionary out there.

[RedCheetah]

Predestination as defined in The Student Bible NIV; “doctrine that God has predetermined that all believers are saved through Christ.”

That's something I heard called "verbicide". Basically they take a word, rewrite the definition, and then christians tell nonchristians they can't understand the bible because they don't have the holy spirit to guide them. Truth is they just know the actual definitions of the words used and that's why it makes no sense. Just to put you straight, here's what the dictionary has to say about the word "doctrine".

"A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group. See Dogma"

[The Editor]

Predestination is the belief that whether you go to Heave or Hell is decided before you are born. Technically the NIV definition is correct, but it is not as comprehensive.

[Kittsuera]

“Various views on Christian predestination

Conditional predestination
Conditional Predestination, or more commonly referred to as conditional election, is a theological stance stemming from the writings and teachings of Jacobus Arminius, after whom Arminianism is named. Arminius studied under the staunch Reformed scholar Theodore Beza, whose views of election, Arminius eventually argued, could not reconcile freedom with moral responsibility.
Arminius used a philosophy called Molinism (named for the philosopher, Luis de Molina) that attempted to reconcile freedom with God's omniscience. They both saw human freedom in terms of the Libertarian philosophy: man's choice is not decided by God's choice, thus God's choice is "conditional", depending on what man chooses. Arminius saw God "looking down the corridors of time" to see the free choices of man, and choosing those who will respond in faith and love to God's love and promises, revealed in Jesus.
Arminianism sees the choice of Christ as an impossibility, apart from God's grace; and the freedom to choose is given to all, because God's prevenient grace is universal (given to everyone). Therefore, God predestines on the basis of foreknowledge of how some will respond to his universal love ("conditional"). In contrast, Calvinism views universal grace as resistible and not sufficient for leading to salvation--or denies universal grace altogether--and instead supposes grace that leads to salvation to be particular and irresistible, given to some but not to others on the basis of God's predestinating choice ("unconditional"). This is also known as "double-predestination."

Temporal predestination
Temporal predestination is the view that God only determines temporal matters, and not eternal ones. This Christian view is analogous to the traditional Jewish view, which distinguishes between preordination and predestination. Temporal matters are pre-ordained by God, but eternal matters, being supra-temporal, are subject to absolute freedom of choice. J. Kenneth Grider

Infralapsarianism
Infralapsarianism (also called sublapsarianism) holds that predestination logically coincides with the preordination of Man's fall into sin. That is, God predestined sinful men for salvation. Therefore according to this view, God is the "ultimate cause", but not the "proximate source" or "author" of sin. Infralapsarians often emphasize a difference between God's decree (which is inviolable and inscrutable), and his revealed will (against which man is disobedient). Proponents also typically emphasize the grace and mercy of God toward all men, although teaching also that only some are predestined for salvation.
In common English parlance, the doctrine of predestination often has particular reference to the doctrines of Calvinism. The version of predestination espoused by John Calvin, after whom Calvinism is named, is sometimes referred to as "double predestination" because in it God predestines some people for salvation (i.e. Unconditional election) and some for condemnation (i.e. Reprobation). Calvin himself defines predestination as "the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. Not all are created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death."[4].
On the spectrum of beliefs concerning predestination, Calvinism is the strongest form among Christians. It teaches that God's predestining decision is based on the knowledge of His own will rather than foreknowledge, concerning every particular person and event; and, God continually acts with entire freedom, in order to bring about his will in completeness, but in such a way that the freedom of the creature is not violated, "but rather, established"[5]
Calvinists who hold the infralapsarian view of predestination usually prefer that term to "sublapsarianism," perhaps with the intent of blocking the inference that they believe predestination is on the basis of foreknowledge (sublapsarian meaning, assuming the fall into sin).[6] The different terminology has the benefit of distinguishing the Calvinist double predestination version of infralapsarianism, from Lutheranism's view that predestination is a mystery, which forbids the unprofitable intrusion of prying minds.
Calvinists seek never to divide predestination in a mathematical way. Their doctrine is uninterested, in the abstract, in questions of "how much" either God or man is responsible for a particular destiny. Questions of "how much" will become hopelessly entangled in paradox, Calvinists teach, regardless of the view of predestination adopted. Instead, Calvinism divides the issues of predestination according to two kinds of being, knowledge, and will, distinguishing that which is divine from that which is human. Therefore, it is not so much an issue of quantity, but of distinct roles or modes of being. God is not a creature nor the creature God in knowledge, will, freedom, ability, responsibility, or anything else. Calvinists will often attribute salvation entirely to God; and yet they will also assert that it is man's responsibility to pursue obedience. As the archetypal illustration of this idea, they believe Jesus in his words and work humanly fulfilled all that he as part of the Trinity had determined from the Father should be done. What he did humanly is distinguishable, but not separate, from what he did divinely.

Supralapsarianism
Supralapsarianism is the doctrine that God's decree of predestination for salvation and reprobation logically precedes his preordination of the human race's fall into sin. That is, God decided to save, and to damn; he then determined that the fall of man into sin would accomplish His purpose. It is a matter of controversy whether or not Calvin himself held this view, but most scholars link him with the infralapsarian position. It is known, however, that Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza, held to the supralapsarian view.

Open theism
Open theism represents a total rejection of predestination in all its forms. Its advocates assert that God cannot have full knowledge of the future, although he can anticipate future events.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination
---
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1144624AA4EE8i
Another explanation(s) of what is meant by predestination. ^

http://bible.freehosting.net/Predestination.htm
And another explanation… ^

http://christianblogs.christianet.com/1148412682.htm
“ “ ^
http://www.geocities.com/viper234/chapter7.htm
“ “ ^
---

The point is that there are many different views of the meanings. It’s like saying…
There food was eaten; over there; there gone, instead of, Their food was eaten; over there; they’re gone. Many things can be taken out of context of the intended meaning when things get translated and the Hebrew language had a way of having deeper meanings than what can be simply explained in other languages with just one word.

In any case regardless of picking at details and such I would like you (meaning everyone who reads this) to ask your self, ‘What if your wrong?’ ‘What if God exists and you die with out knowing him?’ You don’t have to answer me but try and answer your self these questions.

[The Editor]

My definition was from the Oxford English Dictionary, which is a damn sight more definitive than anything on the internet.

Pascal's Wager doesn't appeal to me. I want to be certain about my beliefs, and I want to believe in something I really believe in. If I am wrong I shall go to Hell, but if I'm right then I have nothing to worry about.