It just seemed like you were saying Christianity and the Bible as the only truth, etc., which is a viewpoint which I can respect, but one that is very closed-minded. That first sentence of yours was misleading until you explained yourself in your second post. Sorry if I jumped at you.

>of course it is possible to discuss it. i'm just saying its
>meaningless because without a common ground you wont end up
>anywhere.

I don't think it's meaningless. Even without common ground, you can put forth a lot of different ideas, some of which are in opposition. It still helps shed light on the matter. At least I think so anyway.

Heres a verse "Before Abraham was, "I AM" " that
>doesnt really make any sense and my point is that God doesnt
>make any sense. if you just assume theres a deity named God
>and want to figure out if there is free will or not you can
>end up anywhere depending on what you attribute to that God

That's true. But I'm not excluding anything from this discussion aside from the fact that there is some type of divine being (which was a caveat only because without a divine being, yes we have free will, conversation over). But it doesn't have to be the Christian God. In fact, the attributes of God are an important part of the discussion - is God omniscient? Does he know the future? If I answered those questions from the start, it would severely limit the discussion. So I am trying to be as open-minded as possible.

>I wasnt trying to be closed minded just trying to establish
>a common ground.

I understand your point, but I just didn't want to exclude any directions the discussion could go.

>alright maybe i miscommunicated but again what Im saying is
>that u need some common ground like Buddhist texts or the
>Quran or the Torah or something now what you're saying is
>that instead of picking something we should be able to pick
>everything and thats fine

That's what I wanted.

>but if you dont assume something
>is true what do you use for reference

Your point of reference is your own set of beliefs (although you could also play devil's advocate and present a different view too). I am curious about what other people's points of reference are, so it does belong here.

>You can always pull one verse out of the Bible that makes
>almost anyhting true.

That's true. And that's one of the things that bugs me about people so quick to find quotes. Then they think they've "proven" it.

>You have to look at it as a whole.

As a whole, it just doesn't make sense either. I think the Bible is flawed, and full of inconsistencies. There's this awesome book called "Don't Know Much about the Bible" which I've read, which debunks a lot of popular interpretations of the Bible. And it provides some understanding into the way things were in those times and how you have to interpret the Bible based on those standards and what things meant back then as opposed to our own standards and what things seem to mean to us today. Great book, I've been meaning to reread it really remember shit better.

>Its all out of context if you dont analyze it as a whole.

I think it's confusing even when analyzed as a whole.

>what i meant by that is that non CHristians might not
>understand THE ARGUMENT between other Christians. not that
>they cant understand the free will question.

Okay, I see now.

>It kinda hurt
>when you called me close minded man

Again, sorry man. I'm not trying to be that way.

>cuz i wasnt tryin to
>come across that way at all or even sound condescending,
>before i became a Christian I wondered about all this shit
>for days on end but you cant ever really get anywhere
>because its all bigger than us.

Yeah, I guess it was just a misunderstanding at first - your first reply was kind of short and I didn't get all of what you meant.

>Peace Man

Peace, thanks for participating in the discussion. Sorry if I was an ass. Misunderstandings are a bitch.