God's infinite wisdom.

[RandFan]

No good way to tell kids they have cancer. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/18/ep.children.bad.diagnosis/index.html)

(CNN) -- When her mother and father called her into the den, 9-year-old Gigi Pasley thought they were going to tell her a big surprise, "a good surprise" she said, one she'd be delighted to hear.

"And then she burst out with this awful sound, a moan, a scream of complete and utter agony," said her mother, Jessica Pasley. "She was completely distraught, so much so that my husband, who's a big, tough guy, had to leave the room. He had to walk away."

When she finally managed to talk, Gigi said, "I don't want to die at age 9."
Personally I don't buy that there is an omnipotent god with a plan that includes pain, suffering and death for 9 year olds. If there was he would be one sick bastard. I don't care how many lolipops he has in his waiting room.

[Safe-Keeper]

When it comes time to tell a child he or she has cancer, or some other devastating disease, many parents try to skirt the issue.
"They say, 'Well, we'll tell her it's just a cold, or it's just a virus, or we'll tell her she'll have surgery and then everything will be fine,'" said Dr. Lawrence Wolfe, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New York.
But he said the child always figures it out in the end. "Truth-telling pays off, even if you're clumsy about it," he said.
Sounds like a variation of "no, gramma's not dead, she's just asleep/on a journey". Or for that matter, "in heaven". Didn't cheer my cousin up any.

[patchbunny]

WTF, people? You tell your kid to come over, you have a "good surprise" for her, and the surprise is she again has the same #@&^%ing cancer that she's battled twice before and killed her sister?

What were you THINKING????? :eye-poppi

[Safe-Keeper]

WTF, people? You tell your kid to come over, you have a "good surprise" for her, and the surprise is she again has the same #@&^%ing cancer that she's battled twice before and killed her sister?

What were you THINKING????? :eye-poppiMy sentiments exactly.

[RandFan]

The parents didn't use the word "surprise" that's just what the came to the girls mind. Perhaps they should have asked her to come into the den that they had some bad news.

I don't know. I honestly have no idea how I would have dealt with that. My kids are older now so I just don't know.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Personally I don't buy that there is an omnipotent god with a plan that includes pain, suffering and death for 9 year olds. If there was he would be one sick bastard. I don't care how many lolipops he has in his waiting room.

One could always espouse the modern Christian cop-out in order to reconcile God's omnipotence and benevolence in a seemingly randomly cruel existence:

"Suffering and pain on earth is like the refiner's fire for the soul".

At least this is how I was raised to view our "mortal probation".

[RandFan]

One could always espouse the modern Christian cop-out in order to reconcile God's omnipotence and benevolence in a seemingly randomly cruel existence:

"Suffering and pain on earth is like the refiner's fire for the soul".

At least this is how I was raised to view our "mortal probation".I served a mission and I had a couple of trite responses when I was asked this question. I of course was moved by the question and didn't mean to be trite but what else can you do.

But think about it, if you are sociopath you can actually be god's blacksmith. BTK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader)? He was actually doing god's will by torturing and killing children.

[The Nimble Pianist]

I served a mission and I had a couple of trite responses when I was asked this question. I of course was moved by the question and didn't mean to be trite but what else can you do.

I too served a mission and I was actually taught in what's called the 'Missionary Training Center' to offer my previous response.

But think about it, if you are sociopath you can actually be god's blacksmith. BTK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader)? He was actually doing god's will by torturing and killing children.

Not only that, it still doesn't quite reconcile benevolence with omnipotence. I would think an omnipotent 'Heavenly Father' would know of a more benevolent means by which to endow us with 'experience'.

[RandFan]

I too served a mission and I was actually taught in what's called the 'Missionary Training Center' to offer my previous response.The MTC, Provo, December 1980. Southern California Mission Jan, 1981- Dec, 1982.

Where did you serve?

Not only that, it still doesn't quite reconcile benevolence with omnipotence. I would think an omnipotent 'Heavenly Father' would know of a more benevolent means by which to endow us with 'experience'.Agreed.

It should be noted that many children who are abused physically and sexually grow up to abuse. Not all but enough. The refiners fire is often quite destructive.

What's interesting is that if one takes away god then we can explain why these things happen pretty well. God only clouds and obscures the picture.

[Safe-Keeper]

One could always espouse the modern Christian cop-out in order to reconcile God's omnipotence and benevolence in a seemingly randomly cruel existence:The only honest question to this answer is one we should all learn to utilize more - in all contexts.

I. Don't. Know.

Three short words. That simple.

[The Nimble Pianist]

The MTC, Provo, December 1980. Southern California Mission Jan, 1981- Dec, 1982.

Where did you serve?

Munich Germany / Austria Mission. Feb 05 - Nov 06. (Came home a few months early due to the death of my brother).

Agreed.

It should be noted that many children who are abused physically and sexually grow up to abuse. Not all but enough. The refiners fire is often quite destructive.

Indeed. The 'refiner's fire' has a tendency to lead to atheism as well (as least it did for me). Does this mean it's in God's plan for me to not believe? :p

What's interesting is that if one takes away god then we can explain why these things happen pretty well. God only clouds and obscures the picture.

Indeed, yet this is the modus operandi of human explanation and rationalization (even at times in Science!). Just as Ptolemy and Einstein decided to reconcile their respective theories of geocentrism and the static-state-universe with contradictory data by convoluted epicycles and a nonexistent 'cosmological repulsion force', so too do the religious try to cram seemingly contradictory life experiences into their preconceived hypothesis of reality.

What can I say? We're just too proud a species!

[The Nimble Pianist]

The only honest question to this answer is one we should all learn to utilize more - in all contexts.

I. Don't. Know.

Three short words. That simple.

I hope you won't mind a profound 'AMEN'!

Again, methinks human pride keeps many of us (including yours truly) from uttering such words.

[Safe-Keeper]

No hallelujah?

This is the TEDTalks 'sermon' I got the idea from. If you like saying 'I don't know', you'll like it.
2wdkxdiOFJA

[The Atheist]

Personally I don't buy that there is an omnipotent god with a plan that includes pain, suffering and death for 9 year olds. If there was he would be one sick bastard. I don't care how many lolipops he has in his waiting room.

Amen. Unfortunately, lots of christians escape from that obvious conclusion by all kinds of apologetics. My favourite is always the Roman Catholic position of "god can't interfere".

WTF, people? You tell your kid to come over, you have a "good surprise" for her, and the surprise is she again has the same #@&^%ing cancer that she's battled twice before and killed her sister?

What were you THINKING????? :eye-poppi

I have to wonder why you'd bother leaving a comment when you clearly didn't even read the post.

One could always espouse the modern Christian cop-out in order to reconcile God's omnipotence and benevolence in a seemingly randomly cruel existence:

"Suffering and pain on earth is like the refiner's fire for the soul".

At least this is how I was raised to view our "mortal probation".

That's actually more sickening, if they ever give it a thought.

It's another one of those things I think few - if any - fundie christians ever consider, other than a quick bit of doublethink, namely "god is always right, so suffering must be good".

Horrible.

[RandFan]

No hallelujah?

This is the TEDTalks 'sermon' I got the idea from. If you like saying 'I don't know', you'll like it.
2wdkxdiOFJA Wow. Powerful. If the world of religion held "I don't know" when it comes to the mind of god then this would be a very different world.

Thank you.

[Malerin]

The only honest question to this answer is one we should all learn to utilize more - in all contexts.

I. Don't. Know.

Three short words. That simple.

That is the usual Christian theodicy- they don't presume to know the mind of God, so anything God does is moral. There are a couple others:

1. For God to intervene on every child's behalf who suffers would reveal God's presence, which God wants to keep somewhat mysterious (again, for reasons we can't fathom)
2. The girl will be compensated in the after-life (perhaps heaven is such a splendid place, once you're there, you really don't care how you got there)
3. Of all possible worlds, this is the best world that God could actualize, diseases and all (courtesy of Leibniz). You may think you can imagine a better world, but it would fail in some fundamental way that (again) we can't imagine

I don't think any of these is very convincing, particularly so when you consider animal suffering. It is implausible to think a deer burning to death in a forest fire will be compensated in "Bambi Heaven". However, I think a Christian could argue that animals don't actually suffer- God prevents them from feeling any pain and makes them only appear to suffer. Because they're animals, this avoids any free-will problems, but it makes God a bit devious.

[The Nimble Pianist]

That is the usual Christian theodicy- they don't presume to know the mind of God, so anything God does is moral. There are a couple others:

1. For God to intervene on every child's behalf who suffers would reveal God's presence, which God wants to keep somewhat mysterious (again, for reasons we can't fathom)
2. The girl will be compensated in the after-life (perhaps heaven is such a splendid place, once you're there, you really don't care how you got there)
3. Of all possible worlds, this is the best world that God could actualize, diseases and all (courtesy of Leibniz). You may think you can imagine a better world, but it would fail in some fundamental way that (again) we can't imagine

I don't think any of these is very convincing, particularly so when you consider animal suffering. It is implausible to think a deer burning to death in a forest fire will be compensated in "Bambi Heaven". However, I think a Christian could argue that animals don't actually suffer- God prevents them from feeling any pain and makes them only appear to suffer. Because they're animals, this avoids any free-will problems, but it makes God a bit devious.

Well that's a novel argument! Did you actually hear a Christian say this before?

Had one argued this with me, I'd respond by slapping him.

"Man up! It's not real pain. It's only perceived pain!"

[RandFan]

However, I think a Christian could argue that animals don't actually suffer- God prevents them from feeling any pain and makes them only appear to suffer. Because they're animals, this avoids any free-will problems, but it makes God a bit devious. You mean dishonest.

And who is the father of all lies?

[The Nimble Pianist]

That's actually more sickening, if they ever give it a thought.

It's another one of those things I think few - if any - fundie christians ever consider, other than a quick bit of doublethink, namely "god is always right, so suffering must be good".

Horrible.

Well I can't speak of a Fundamentalist Christian since I was raised Mormon. In Mormonism, our 'mortal life' is seen as a probationary period to prepare us for godhood. Mormons essentially extend the virtue of success and perseverance in the face of adversity to the celestial spheres in as much that whatever trials we face in life (even a gruesome death) will help with our exaltation into divinity.

Mind you I'm not defending this position. As I mentioned a few posts back, this 'defense' still doesn't account for omnipotence.

[yy2bggggs]

"Suffering and pain on earth is like the refiner's fire for the soul".
From my fundamentalist background, it's more like:
"Suffering is a consequence of the original sin."

I do wonder, however, on which day God created the immune system.

[Malerin]

Well that's a novel argument! Did you actually hear a Christian say this before?

Had one argued this with me, I'd respond by slapping him.

"Man up! It's not real pain. It's only perceived pain!"

LOL, it's only a defense for animal suffering. And no, I've never heard a Christian say it before. I wrote it for a paper in a philo of religion class many years ago.

[Tumblehome]

RandFan, I agree with you 100%, and to further your case, I also want to mention a link you once posted to photos of a teen-aged Muslim girl being stoned to death because she was dating a boy in the next town, or some crime against humanity like that. The story of the nine-year-old is bad enough, but the pictures of the Muslim girl really disturbed me. They ought to be required viewing for anyone who has his head in the clouds about a just and compassionate God looking after his flock.

[stilicho]

RandFan, I agree with you 100%, and to further your case, I also want to mention a link you once posted to photos of a teen-aged Muslim girl being stoned to death because she was dating a boy in the next town, or some crime against humanity like that. The story of the nine-year-old is bad enough, but the pictures of the Muslim girl really disturbed me. They ought to be required viewing for anyone who has his head in the clouds about a just and compassionate God looking after his flock.

Probably the biggest question in either philosophy or religion is why mortal beings have to suffer as well as to not be immortal. It should be enough to simply know that survival itself is both fleeting and difficult.

Would a supremely powerful and benevolent deity really create immortal and disease-free entities? Just as an experiment, it could start with badgers or turnips.

[six7s]

God's infinite wisdom.Since when is something that doesn't exist immeasurable? :confused:

[Twiler]

Since when is something that doesn't exist immeasurable? :confused:

Er, isn't everything that doesn't exist immeasurable?

I suppose you could speculate about theoretical entities with particular characteristics, but in that case they'd have existence as ideas.

[devnull]

excuse me, Ill be right back - just gotta go hug and kiss my daughters.

[The Atheist]

Er, isn't everything that doesn't exist immeasurable?

I suppose you could speculate about theoretical entities with particular characteristics, but in that case they'd have existence as ideas.

There you go then.

Leprechauns are little wee men, so we can be sure that they're under 3', say.

God is immense, omnipotent, awesome, huge, omnipresent.

God would need to be at least much larger than any known supernova.

[six7s]

Er, isn't everything that doesn't exist immeasurable?I guess so, if you think the E on a fuel gauge stands for enough

[Tumblehome]

Probably the biggest question in either philosophy or religion is why mortal beings have to suffer as well as to not be immortal. It should be enough to simply know that survival itself is both fleeting and difficult.

Why it's a question at all is beyond me. The answer is staring them in the face, waving its hands and shouting, "Hey, look at me!", but they can't see it through rose-coloured glasses.

Would a supremely powerful and benevolent deity really create immortal and disease-free entities? Just as an experiment, it could start with badgers or turnips.

I'm sure that would be impossible within the conditions of this Universe, but just in case, if it wants to try, it should start with me. :cool:

[JoeTheJuggler]

One could always espouse the modern Christian cop-out in order to reconcile God's omnipotence and benevolence in a seemingly randomly cruel existence:

"Suffering and pain on earth is like the refiner's fire for the soul".

At least this is how I was raised to view our "mortal probation".

So when another kid with life-threatening cancer goes into spontaneous remission ("miraculously") and it's attributed to God, it means God really wants that kid to suffer?

If God is behind all this (the omnipotence and benevolence thing), he's being merciful to one kid and cruel to the other. You can't just change the rules to suit the situation and still use the term "benevolence" in any meaningful way whatsoever.

[Tumblehome]

One could always espouse the modern Christian cop-out in order to reconcile God's omnipotence and benevolence in a seemingly randomly cruel existence:

"Suffering and pain on earth is like the refiner's fire for the soul".

At least this is how I was raised to view our "mortal probation".


There is some secular truth in that saying, but I've always been struck by the selectivity of sentiments like that. It only applies to the living, not to those who've died from their "soul-strengthening". A four-year-old burning to death in a house fire isn't getting much benefit from his suffering.

GOD: Quit yer screamin', kid, I'm making you stronger for the last hellish minute of your life!

[Beerina]

That is the usual Christian theodicy- they don't presume to know the mind of God, so anything God does is moral. There are a couple others:

1. For God to intervene on every child's behalf who suffers would reveal God's presence, which God wants to keep somewhat mysterious (again, for reasons we can't fathom)
2. The girl will be compensated in the after-life (perhaps heaven is such a splendid place, once you're there, you really don't care how you got there)
3. Of all possible worlds, this is the best world that God could actualize, diseases and all (courtesy of Leibniz). You may think you can imagine a better world, but it would fail in some fundamental way that (again) we can't imagine

I don't think any of these is very convincing

You can say that again.

particularly so when you consider animal suffering. It is implausible to think a deer burning to death in a forest fire will be compensated in "Bambi Heaven". However, I think a Christian could argue that animals don't actually suffer- God prevents them from feeling any pain and makes them only appear to suffer. Because they're animals, this avoids any free-will problems, but it makes God a bit devious.

Other theologists would balk immediately at this concept because it makes God out to be a deceiver.

Further, just letting us think a mere animal is burning to death is, itself, incredibly cruel. Now throw in humans. What, are they also just fake automatons if they are tortured?


No, there is no way to be in this universe, ethically, unless we were placed here with our consent. Which nobody remembers giving, of course, so we'd have to have had (possibly temporary) mind wipes as part of the deal.

So one of these is true:

1. No gods, and universe is as-is, more or less, and we just evolved.

2. Whoever created this universe, God or programmer or guy with a K-Mart build-a-universe terrarium kit, is unethical. Or lost control to someone who is unethical. Or forgot about it, leaving it running unattended.

3. We are here either voluntarily (god knows why, with mind wipe) or involuntarily (maybe we're all super-mass-murderers, and we cannot live peacefully in the "real world", so they give us an option of infinite jail, or mind wipe with new personality grown the hard way.

So whatever.

Personally, I cannot conceive of any truly voluntary reason we'd be here, unless we're all "really" some massive, ancient consciousnesses that want a trip back to "the real olden days" from whence our species originally came, that sort of sci-fi story thing.

But I would have to reject the "and how bad would we feel stepping on an anthill in Africa" issue. Because, although I can conceive of a different "thing", akin to consciousness, that we cannot imagine, the way a robot cannot imagine consciousness, I can't see such a thing (or set of things) making a mind so unbelievably massive that it views being a child who is tortured as pointless, ignorable drivel.

We think animals are conscious because they express some of the same emotions as us, and it's reasonable it's conscious emotion driving it, just like they can run like us (or better) and enjoy flavorful food and so on. To presume it isn't consciousness driving a dog to shake with rage and fear and bark at something would violate Occam's razor because it would propose a different, or secondary, mechanism to handle this.

Yet we do not think it ethical to torture animals, in spite of their limited consciousness compared to ours*.





* And as a motivation system, their consciousness may not be limited whatsoever, any more than their legs are "limited, compared to ours", which is clearly a silly concept. We suck at running compared to just about every four-legged, and two-legged, animal. Oh, sure, they may have lousy memory and learning and thinking and 2.6s short term memory before they forget what was just going on, aside from the occasional "flashbulb" incident like a bee sting. But that's not the same as the conscious experience of rage or fear itself. Or shame. Dogs express shame**.


** Which is yet another sick emotion for a god to invent. :rolleyes:

[RandFan]

Now throw in humans. What, are they also just fake automatons if they are tortured?Yet we would recoil at the thougt of justifying murder by using anesthesia first. Lack of pain still doesn't excuse snuffing out a life. Still, there's no question children suffer when they are sick.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Personally I don't buy that there is an omnipotent god with a plan that includes pain, suffering and death for 9 year olds. If there was he would be one sick bastard. I don't care how many lolipops he has in his waiting room.

Welllllll, what can I tell ya lad? God acts in mysterious ways, ya know?

Mysterious ways.... like Magic, ya know. It's all Mysterious.

It's not supposed to make sense. Otherwise, how are you gonna make so many people believe in it?

[edge]

Ted makes a good point there when he says that God maybe in each of us.
Seems like I have heard that before from an N.D.E. story, that he has shattered himself into pieces for that reason, also Jesus says that the kingdom is within us. The person that told the near death story said that at some point God will reform himself along with us, I just don't know.
The whole theme points back to the fall, into original sin.
Suffering sucks for anyone though.
I do know this that there is another side to life, that I do know, at least I know it for myself. What I don't know is, if I will burn or not.
The real question is, what's it all about?
I believe that all creatures feel everything we do.
Beyond the microscopic level I don't think so.

[Macoy]

On Montserrat, an island with a highly religious population, god likes to answer their prayers to stop the volcano destroying their wonderful island by doing this sort of thing on a regular basis (yesterday, 21st December):

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_2633494f3612f0594.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14680)

He obviously likes a laugh, so we're all looking forward to Christmas Day.

[The Nimble Pianist]

So when another kid with life-threatening cancer goes into spontaneous remission ("miraculously") and it's attributed to God, it means God really wants that kid to suffer?

If God is behind all this (the omnipotence and benevolence thing), he's being merciful to one kid and cruel to the other. You can't just change the rules to suit the situation and still use the term "benevolence" in any meaningful way whatsoever.

<Cue the typical apologist response> "As you can see, God has a unique plan for each of us!"

[The Nimble Pianist]

Ted makes a good point there when he says that God maybe in each of us.
Seems like I have heard that before from an N.D.E. story, that he has shattered himself into pieces for that reason,

What NDE, who and when?

also Jesus says that the kingdom is within us. The person that told the near death story said that at some point God will reform himself along with us, I just don't know.

Good for this NDE guy, but what makes his anecdote any more credible than the crazy man at the subway who speaks to his shoes?

The whole theme points back to the fall, into original sin.

How so?

Suffering sucks for anyone though.

It sure does, which is why it seems untenable to believe in an omnipotent being who is said to love us yet does nothing to prevent this suffering.

I do know this that there is another side to life, that I do know, at least I know it for myself.

Care you share with us your secret knowledge?

What I don't know is, if I will burn or not.

This is why everyone should make a will and explicitly mention whether they want to be cremated or buried ;)

The real question is, what's it all about?

This presumes that there is a purpose to begin with. Why does suffering have to have any purpose? Oh that's right because you're trying to reconcile the reality of suffering with another presupposed belief. I almost forgot.

I believe that all creatures feel everything we do.
Beyond the microscopic level I don't think so.

What does this even mean? What is 'everything' that we feel?

[six7s]

I believe that all creatures feel everything we do.
Beyond the microscopic level I don't think so.What does this even mean? What is 'everything' that we feel?
Hi xixxvmcm85,

It's 'edge-speak'

You'll might soon get used to it, but you probably won't ever comprehend it...

I'm not sure edge understands it

Maybe it's an encoded message for some 'secret squirrel' out there on the underwebs

Who knows?

I sure don't

[RandFan]

The whole theme points back to the fall, into original sin. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a beautiful allegory that has been debased with one of the dumbest concepts ever dreamt up by man.

God created humans.
He created them perfect (well, not so perfect that they couldn't fall for the evil temptations of a.) the Serpent b.) Satan c.) who knows?
In their perfect form they could not procreate and bring about more humans (why didn't god just create more humans?).
So he set them up to fail.
He then condemned them for doing what he knew they would do and what he intended for them to do.
Why can't modern humans; you know; the ones who split the atom, discovered the structure of DNA and who traveled to the moon; see through such an idiotic mythology?

[RandFan]

The whole theme points back to the fall, into original sin.
Suffering sucks for anyone though.I think one of the most arrogant things anyone can do is look at a child who is suffering and say, oh, hey, it's original sin.

How 'bout just a bit of hummility and simply say, "I don't know". Why do you have to understand a childs suffering via original sin? What the hell does original sin have to do with some children suffering? Oh, it brought imperfection into the world. Right, like god couldn't mitigate the imperfection, like Christians don't believe that god can help them find their wallets. Of course god can help them find their wallets and cure SOME children of cancer. Just not all children. Why? Well, original sin of course? Why is that? Shut the hell up. God works in mysterious ways. As does origninal sin. It causes some people to suffer horribly and die and it causes others to get a tummy ache and then god heals the tummy ache. Don't think. It will just make your head hurt and god doesn't heal heads that hurt from thinking. He would just as well prefer that you shut up and accept that he (god) is mysterious.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Malerin
That is the usual Christian theodicy- they don't presume to know the mind of God, so anything God does is moral. There are a couple others:

Strange that someone who studies the book where God reveals himself should walk away saying he doesn't know the mind of God. Sounds like the person is confused about what he read.



1. For God to intervene on every child's behalf who suffers would reveal God's presence, which God wants to keep somewhat mysterious (again, for reasons we can't fathom)

God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

2. The girl will be compensated in the after-life (perhaps heaven is such a splendid place, once you're there, you really don't care how you got there)

From a Christian standpoint suffering per se isn't what people are compensated for. People are compensated for accepting Jesus as their savior and striving to live a righteous life to the best of their ability. Actually, being given eternal life is described as a free undeserved gift since it cannot be earned via suffering or and other behavior.

Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


3. Of all possible worlds, this is the best world that God could actualize, diseases and all (courtesy of Leibniz). You may think you can imagine a better world, but it would fail in some fundamental way that (again) we can't imagine

That's YOUR idea not God's. If this were the best of all possible world's then he wouldn't be planning on replacing it with a better one now would he?


Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

2 Peter 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;

I don't think any of these is very convincing

A human and satanically controlled world wasn't meant to be convincing in that way.

[Safe-Keeper]

God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:If 'the things' are to be understood as 'all things', then the Bible is simply wrong, accidentally (read: wishful thinking) or deliberately (read: blatant lies).


I don't think any of these is very convincing
A human and satanically controlled world wasn't meant to be convincing in that way.Satanically controlled? What happened to this free will you guys keep touting?

[RandFan]

Strange that someone who studies the book where God reveals himself should walk away saying he doesn't know the mind of God. Sounds like the person is confused about what he read.By this one would have to conclude that god is one bent @#$% who gets a hard on killing children. He does it so much throughout the bible.

[The Atheist]

Why can't modern humans; you know; the ones who split the atom, discovered the structure of DNA and who traveled to the moon; see through such an idiotic mythology?

Ignorance is strength.

[Belz...]

I think one of the most arrogant things anyone can do is look at a child who is suffering and say, oh, hey, it's original sin.

How 'bout just a bit of hummility and simply say, "I don't know". Why do you have to understand a childs suffering via original sin? What the hell does original sin have to do with some children suffering? Oh, it brought imperfection into the world. Right, like god couldn't mitigate the imperfection

Well, of course he could, but then that would've removed our free will, or some other stupid crap explanation.

like Christians don't believe that god can help them find their wallets. Of course god can help them find their wallets and cure SOME children of cancer. Just not all children. Why? Well, original sin of course? Why is that? Shut the hell up. God works in mysterious ways.

Don't you just love that ? Personally it's one of the most frustrating things about discussing with believers of anything (including hockey teams): the ability to utterly disregard any- and everything in order to maintain said belief. Is it that painful to change your mind ?? Sheesh.

[Beerina]

So basically a being who need never fear death allows it in others, including children.

A being who need never fear pain allows it in others, including children.

A being who need never fear terror allows it in others, including children.

A being who need never fear loss and heartbreak allows it in others, including children.




Nice guy.

[The Nimble Pianist]

God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable.

He's given us about as much evidence of his existence as he has that psychic powers are real and that UFOs abduct unsuspecting White people in the mid-west. Even humoring the idea that there is evidence of a creator, how does that evidence equate to "Jesus is LORD and one must call upon his name (and his alone) for salvation"?



From a Christian standpoint suffering per se isn't what people are compensated for. People are compensated for accepting Jesus as their savior and striving to live a righteous life to the best of their ability. Actually, being given eternal life is described as a free undeserved gift since it cannot be earned via suffering or and other behavior.

So this god fellow creates us without asking, places us on earth with no knowledge of him while only giving 1/3 (currently) a chance at living in a Christian home. He essentially leaves us alone to suffer through the life he created and then once we die he says "You know, you don't really deserve eternal life but since I'm such a nice guy and you conveniently discovered my Jewish book and learned how to utter my Greco-Roman name, I'll give it to you". And this is your concept of a loving creator who gives us "sufficient evidence of his existence"? This guy reminds me more of the abusive spouse. He seems to have that "You're lucky to have me" mindset.


That's YOUR idea not God's. If this were the best of all possible world's then he wouldn't be planning on replacing it with a better one now would he?

But it's YOUR idea that god is both omnipotent and benevolent. If this is true, why is he either unwilling or unable to circumvent this imperfect existence and cut straight to the chase of the wonderful afterlife that mortals like you keep raving on about (yet you've never yourself experienced it)?


A human and satanically controlled world wasn't meant to be convincing in that way.

So now you're contradicting your own position. Notice that at the beginning of your post you were arguing that god has given sufficient evidence for everyone to have a fair shot at knowing that he exists, that his name is Jesus and that one must ask for him to save that person. Now you seem to be saying that this world is too satanic for anyone to know definitively any of the aforementioned. This also adds to the idea that god is either malicious or finite in capability. If he forfeited control to this Satan character then he's malicious and if he never had that control to begin with, then he was never omnipotent.

PS: I removed all your references to the Bible because I'm a little anal retentive when it comes to circular reasoning being used on a critical thinking forum. I didn't think you'd mind.

[bokonon]

If this were the best of all possible world's then he wouldn't be planning on replacing it with a better one now would he?

Isaiah 65:17
For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

2 Peter 3:13
Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21:1
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away
Earth 2.0 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware)
Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product.

Let's see, the development cycle for Earth 1.0 is claimed to have been seven days, including peripherals and support systems...

[Macoy]

Strange that someone who studies the book where God reveals himself should walk away saying he doesn't know the mind of God. Sounds like the person is confused about what he read.

God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable.

You speak as one who knows the mind of your god.

Tell me, was the wine created by jesus incorruptible?

[Safe-Keeper]

Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product. According to the Bible itself, Jesus is supposed to come back within years, if even that, of His death - "some of the ones standing here will not taste death before the Son of Man comes in his kingdom". "This generation will not pass away before these things [the return of the Messiah and the end of the world] happen". There are Bible scholars (see the PBS Frontline documentary From Jesus to Christ) who agree on this, and it also makes some of the stranger New Testament commands, such as the when Jesus orders His disciples to sell all their possessions and distribute all their money from the poor, or to not offer resistance when attacked. These rules make little sense in our society, but more so with the end of the world right around the corner.

So if Jesus was born around 1-6 CE, He is currently almost two thousand years overdue. My Christian friends sometimes get on my nerves, but you gotta hand it to them - they've got patience.

ETA: I find it sort of ironic, really - we all diss doomsday sects so much, and yet its what the number one religion in the world started out as... a doomsday sect:).

[edge]

No one can know the entire mind of God and even Jesus said that.
Ted in the video may have hit on something. When he said that god has put some of him in each of us to know all of what is the human experiences, at least in so many words.

Xixxvmcm85 says:
If this is true, why is he either unwilling or unable to circumvent this imperfect existence and cut straight to the chase of the wonderful afterlife that mortals like you keep raving on about (yet you've never yourself experienced it)?

Oh but I have! And you will too.

Beerena you want to be immortal?
Is that right, you feel worthy?
You people are funny, especially when you mock it all.

Xixxvmcm85
My other post that you couldn't figure out was my opinion on whether or no animals feel emotions, pain or anything that is human.
Damn you people can't remember the conversations.

This presumes that there is a purpose to begin with. Why does suffering have to have any purpose? Oh that's right because you're trying to reconcile the reality of suffering with another presupposed belief. I almost forgot.


You have no purpose is that right? None?


I think one of the most arrogant things anyone can do is look at a child who is suffering and say, oh, hey, it's original sin.

How 'bout just a bit of hummility and simply say, "I don't know". Why do you have to understand a childs suffering via original sin? What the hell does original sin have to do with some children suffering?

Edge says: "quotes himself for clarification" I just don't know. You know the beliefs as well as I do.

Put your guns and knives away it's just a forum.
This has been Edge speak brought to you by, Me.

When I said burn I meant burn in hell, because we sit here and philosophize about this and are we doing anything to easy the suffering?
There are millions of kids around the world starving as we sit our big fat arses at our computers and eat and drink talk sheoit.
What is our purposes?
Any of you brainiacs want to start a fundraiser for the kids in Ethiopia?
I would be willing to help, maybe that’s one of our purposes!
If you want sarcasm this is the place to come to.

[Malerin]

Strange that someone who studies the book where God reveals himself should walk away saying he doesn't know the mind of God. Sounds like the person is confused about what he read.

The confusion may lie in Jesus commanding us to "love thy enemy", and God commanding us to stone to death blasphemurs, non-virgins, and rebellious children.




God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable.

That may be so, but how about someone who concludes that the evidence points towards Vishnu instead of Jehovah? Is that "inexcusable"?



From a Christian standpoint suffering per se isn't what people are compensated for. People are compensated for accepting Jesus as their savior and striving to live a righteous life to the best of their ability. Actually, being given eternal life is described as a free undeserved gift since it cannot be earned via suffering or and other behavior.

The suffering has to be explained somehow. An all-loving, omniscient, all-powerful God would not allow suffering unless there was some compelling reason for it.

That's YOUR idea not God's. If this were the best of all possible world's then he wouldn't be planning on replacing it with a better one now would he?

I don't know what God's planning. I think my version of God is quite different than yours, and referencing the Bible is only going to be compelling for a fellow believer.


A human and satanically controlled world wasn't meant to be convincing in that way.

Why does God allow Satan to control anything?

[RandFan]

How 'bout just a bit of hummility and simply say, "I don't know". Why do you have to understand a childs suffering via original sin?
Edge, please note the word "simply". My complaint is the nonsense of origninal sin. It's an idiotic thing to suggest when talking about child suffering.

I stand by that.

You have no purpose is that right?How does this question have anything whatsoever to do with my post? It doesn't.

Since you didn't answer I'll ask again, why does suffering have to have any purpose?

Put your guns and knives away it's just a forum. There are no guns or knives. Only questions and contempt for arrogant assumptions that there is a loving god in the face of suffering.

If you want to simply say "I don't know" then fine. If you want to believe in god fine with me. Don't then turn around and lecture me. Don't presume what I do and don't do for my fellow man. If you want someone to condemn I would suggest you talk to the guy who finds lost wallets and let's kids suffer and die. I don't think he exists. I don't believe there is any one that is such an evil bastard.

[bokonon]

Why does God allow Satan to control anything?
When God created the world, he did such a great job that he was given a bonus and promoted to VP of the Gamma galaxy. Back here in the Milky Way, the new God hired to manage Earth (some say "promoted from within," but no one knows for certain) wasn't as brilliant or as attentive to detail as the original designer. He screwed up frequently when attempting to roll maintenance upgrades into production; one of those screw ups was so egregious that he attempted to cover it up by flooding the structure.

After that, Satan was hired as a stooge, so the boss would always have somebody to blame.

[six7s]

Don't you know there ain't no devil? That's just god when he's drunk
Tom Waits

rd04vltAt6I

[Radrook]

The information provided was an effort on my part to correct a misrepresentation of the Christian position on the topic at hand. One need not misrepresent in order to disagree. In fact, misrepresentration is not disagreement at all. It's straw man.

BTW
The scriptures provided were to support the clarification. Otherwise it would constitute my mere opinion.

[Radrook]

The confusion may lie in Jesus commanding us to "love thy enemy", and God commanding us to stone to death blasphemurs, non-virgins, and rebellious children.


Is permissive parenting an expression of love?

BTW

From a Christian standpoint the harshness of the law was given to illustrate that mankind could not attain righteousness without an intermediary to intercede on its behalf.


That may be so, but how about someone who concludes that the evidence points towards Vishnu instead of Jehovah? Is that "inexcusable"?

The inexcusability is in reference to not seeing a creator in creation.


The suffering has to be explained somehow. An all-loving, omniscient, all-powerful God would not allow suffering unless there was some compelling reason for it.

There is a compelling reason for it's TEMPORARY permission.



I don't know what God's planning. I think my version of God is quite different than yours, and referencing the Bible is only going to be compelling for a fellow believer.


True. My biblical references are meant only to show I'm not pulling ideas out of my hat.


Why does God allow Satan to control anything?

To allow the challenge to his sovereignty to run its course until it has been definitely established that the accusations made in Eden were false.

BTW
Mankind as represented by Adam and Eve by their actions requested to go it on there own in league with Satan. So the allowance isn't just a whim. It's a response to a demand based on Satan's false accusations.

[Radrook]

He's given us about as much evidence of his existence as he has that psychic powers are real and that UFOs abduct unsuspecting White people in the mid-west.

There are scientists who disagree with your certainty concerning the absence of an ID. In fact who consider your certainty both illogical and antiscientific. Perhaps because your certainty demands omniscience.




Even humoring the idea that there is evidence of a creator, how does that evidence equate to "Jesus is LORD and one must call upon his name (and his alone) for salvation"?

I was giving you the Christian viewpoint which I found to be misrepresented.



So this god fellow creates us without asking,

So you consider granting of life an evil?




places us on earth with no knowledge of him....

That brings us back to the inexcusable scripture.


....while only giving 1/3 (currently) a chance at living in a Christian home. He essentially leaves us alone to suffer through the life he created and then once we die he says "You know, you don't really deserve eternal life but since I'm such a nice guy and you conveniently discovered my Jewish book and learned how to utter my Greco-Roman name, I'll give it to you".

The injustices and inequalities of this world are an example of how inefficient mankind is in handling his own affairs without God's direct help. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with how God governs the earth because God isn't presently governing this earth. Hasn't been for the past six-thousand years. From a biblical standpoint course. But I won't quote in order not to annoy you.

And this is your concept of a loving creator who gives us "sufficient evidence of his existence"?

This is the Christian view of God which you find unacceptable.


This guy reminds me more of the abusive spouse. He seems to have that "You're lucky to have me" mindset.

An abusive spouse doesn't strive to close the gap between himself and his spouse in order to establish an everlasting happy relationship. That's one point where your analogy breaks down.

But it's YOUR idea that god is both omnipotent and benevolent. If this is true, why is he either unwilling or unable to circumvent this imperfect existence and cut straight to the chase ....

Because God has a schedule which might appear to us to be exceedingly slow.


....
of the wonderful afterlife that mortals like you keep raving on about (yet you've never yourself experienced it)?


That's because to experience it you have to die.

BTW
Scientists are currently raving about branes multi universes, and other such things they have never experienced. In fact they rave all the time about a process they have never experienced nor even seen but which they enthusiastically assume takes place and which they say that those who don't believe it are inexcusable.

So now you're contradicting your own position. Notice that at the beginning of your post you were arguing that god has given sufficient evidence for everyone to have a fair shot at knowing that he exists,

I gave a scripture expressing the idea that those who do not see God's hand in creation are inexcusable.


that his name is Jesus and that one must ask for him to save that person. .

Jesus said he is the Son of God. In the Hebrew Scriptures God isn't called Jesus.

Now you seem to be saying that this world is too satanic for anyone to know definitively any of the aforementioned. This also adds to the idea that god is either malicious or finite in capability

No, I didn't say that this world is too satanic for people to detect an ID in creation.


If he forfeited control to this Satan character then he's malicious and if he never had that control to begin with, then he was never omnipotent.

Some people might choose to see it that way. Others might choose not to.


PS: I removed all your references to the Bible because I'm a little anal retentive when it comes to circular reasoning being used on a critical thinking forum. I didn't think you'd mind.

No problem.

[Radrook]

So basically a being who need never fear death allows it in others, including children.

A being who need never fear pain allows it in others, including children.

A being who need never fear terror allows it in others, including children.

A being who need never fear loss and heartbreak allows it in others, including children.




Nice guy.


Perhaps because he is being guided by consequentialist morality.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Oh but I have! And you will too.

Prove it.

Beerena you want to be immortal?
Is that right, you feel worthy?
You people are funny, especially when you mock it all.

I can't speak for Beerena, but I mock it to the same extent that I mock any unfounded assertion that is held as gospel.

Xixxvmcm85
My other post that you couldn't figure out was my opinion on whether or no animals feel emotions, pain or anything that is human.
Damn you people can't remember the conversations.

I couldn't understand because it was gibberish, and I still don't understand it. What does "they feel everything we do, but nothing above the molecular level" mean?



You have no purpose is that right? None?

No objective purpose, that is correct.


When I said burn I meant burn in hell, because we sit here and philosophize about this and are we doing anything to easy the suffering?

I know what you meant by burn. My answer about cremation was flippant (didn't you notice the little winky smiley?)

We're here 'philosophizing' about this topic because this is an INTERNET FORUM (and more specifically a forum about critical thinking). Are you expecting us to set up a food bank or something here at JREF? How do you even know what kind of charitable work individual members do here on their free time away from the fora?

There are millions of kids around the world starving as we sit our big fat arses at our computers and eat and drink talk sheoit.
What is our purposes?
Any of you brainiacs want to start a fundraiser for the kids in Ethiopia?
I would be willing to help, maybe that’s one of our purposes!
If you want sarcasm this is the place to come to.

My my my if I've never seen a wonderful example of a red herring before...!

Leave the forum then and walk the talk!

[The Nimble Pianist]

There are scientists who disagree with your certainty concerning the absence of an ID. In fact who consider your certainty both illogical and antiscientific. Perhaps because your certainty demands omniscience.

So? If pressed hard enough, anyone can find a number of "people who agree" yet this doesn't in anyway further the discussion. This is precisely why appeals to authority (or to popularity) are inherently fallacious.

By the way, I never admitted any certainty to my outlook. I merely stated the obvious that there is as much evidence for a creator as there is for the power of psychics and UFOs.


I was giving you the Christian viewpoint which I found to be misrepresented.

Ah. My mistake then.

So you consider granting of life an evil?

The bringing into existence of beings that are set up to fail (see: Original Sin, and salvation through Jesus alone)? Yes I find that to be evil, just like I find it evil for human beings to conceive more life than they have the means to physically support. The difference between humans that do this and an alleged omnipotent and omnipresent god that does this is that humans in the very end can still have stupidity and/or ignorance as a mitigating factor in determining culpability. A comparable analogy would be a human being who purposefully creates new life knowing that said life could not be reasonbly supported but did it anyway.

The injustices and inequalities of this world are an example of how inefficient mankind is in handling his own affairs without God's direct help. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with how God governs the earth because God isn't presently governing this earth. Hasn't been for the past six-thousand years. From a biblical standpoint course. But I won't quote in order not to annoy you.

This naturally raises the question (which I addressed in my previous post): Why did God forfeit power to such an evil person like Satan? I doubt you are asserting that Satan's powers are derived independently of God. Moreover, why would God hold individuals to the same standard that he held the alleged Adam & Eve when we are in no way responsible for whatever it is they are said to have egregiously done?


An abusive spouse doesn't strive to close the gap between himself and his spouse in order to establish an everlasting happy relationship. That's one point where your analogy breaks down.

No. An abusive spouse pays mere lip-service to reconciliation much like Yahweh does. HE is directly responsible for this mess through (at the very least) negligent creation yet he deflects responsibility onto the abused party.


That's because to experience it you have to die.

Which is why I fail to see the utility in assuming what happens after we die save for the obvious.


BTW
Scientists are currently raving about branes multi universes, and other such things they have never experienced. In fact they rave all the time about a process they have never experienced nor even seen but which they enthusiastically assume takes place and which they say that those who don't believe it are inexcusable.

And skeptics like me refuse to accept them as anything more than possibilities, that is until such can be demonstrated through physical evidence. (Whether the multi-verses of M theory are substantiated by evidence I do not know. I admittingly know very little about cosmology) In either case, I couldn't care less what such scientists think of me any less than what I care about zealous Christians who scream hell-fire about my alleged "immortal soul".


I gave a scripture expressing the idea that those who do not see God's hand in creation are inexcusable.

Jesus said he is the Son of God. In the Hebrew Scriptures God isn't called Jesus.

According to Christianity (at least traditional Christianity) Jesus IS God and salvation is SOLELY through Jesus ergo one must confess the name of Jesus (no matter how you decide to pronounce it) in order to be saved. One must first be cognizant of the actual man-god Jesus, and subsequently believe in that man-god's divine side.



No, I didn't say that this world is too satanic for people to detect an ID in creation.

I quoted you where you stated two contradictory things concerning the ability of humans to logically deduce 'god' so you're going to have to do more than merely assert that you didn't. Show me how I misunderstood you.

[Safe-Keeper]

The confusion may lie in Jesus commanding us to "love thy enemy", and God commanding us to stone to death blasphemurs, non-virgins, and rebellious children.Is permissive parenting an expression of love?Are you being serious? You view permissive parenting as wrong and as such people are justified in stoning their children?

This guy reminds me more of the abusive spouse. He seems to have that "You're lucky to have me" mindset. An abusive spouse doesn't strive to close the gap between himself and his spouse in order to establish an everlasting happy relationship.Neither does God. See also


Battered Person Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome#Symptomology)
Stockholm Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)

ICD9 code 995.81 shows the syndrome as including "battered person/man/spouse syndrome NEC" and any person presenting with identified physical descriptors rather than psychological descriptors falls under the general heading of "Adult physical abuse", classified under "Injury and Poisoning".

In lay terms, this is a reference to any person who, because of constant and severe domestic violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence) usually involving physical abuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_abuse) by a partner, becomes depressed and unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation.

Sufferers have low self-esteem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-esteem), and often believe that the abuse is their fault. Such persons usually refuse to press criminal charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance. Often sufferers will even seek out their very abuser for comfort shortly after an incident of abuse.Anyone else reminded of certain Christians?

[Radrook]

So? If pressed hard enough, anyone can find a number of "people who agree" yet this doesn't in anyway further the discussion. This is precisely why appeals to authority (or to popularity) are inherently fallacious.

The reason I mention it is because atheists on this forum have repeatedly pointed out that scientists who believe in an ID aren't really scientists which is untrue. But you are right. Appeal to authority can indeed be fallacious reasoning.

By the way, I never admitted any certainty to my outlook.

I stand corrected.


merely stated the obvious that there is as much evidence for a creator as there is for the power of psychics and UFOs.


And I stated that such a viewpoint isn't universally shared. In fact, if we survey the world population we find that the vast majority does perceive the hand of an ID in nature. No, I am not appealing to bandwagon. I only point it out in response to your "obvious" statement to show that what you claim to be obvious isn't as obvious as you might perhaps imagine it to be. Actually, the numbers indicate that quite the opposite is obvious to most people.


The bringing into existence of beings that are set up to fail (see: Original Sin, and salvation through Jesus alone)?

From a biblical standpoint Adam and Eve were not predestined to fail. Instead they chose to fail. The Jesus Ransom sacrifice was to fix what they chose to disrupt. Furthermore, is a creature impervious to failure created without making it a machine? True, God is described as having limitless power. But there are things that due to being self-contradictory or inherently paradoxical aren't possible regardless of how much power is applied. The squaring of a circle is an example. Do you by any chance see a way of making a creature that has free will that cannot choose to disobey and bring upon itself the consequences of his own choices?



Yes I find that to be evil, just like I find it evil for human beings to conceive more life than they have the means to physically support.

How does God lack the means to physically support the life he creates?


The difference between humans that do this and an alleged omnipotent and omnipresent god that does this is that humans in the very end can still have stupidity and/or ignorance as a mitigating factor in determining culpability.

I agree that such a scenario is evil and that it is often caused by ignorance and stupidity. l However, I disagree that is not what is biblically described as having taken place between mankind and the ID.


A comparable analogy would be a human being who purposefully creates new life knowing that said life could not be reasonably supported but did it anyway.

You speak of lack of support. Our first parents were given support. They were provided with perfect minds and bodies. They had absolutely no tendencies to sin as we do. Their inclinations were to do good. So any deviation from doing good was totally based on the willful choice or misuse of their perfect faculties. They had been clearly told what to do and not to do and provided with the mental capabilities to understand. They had food, comfort, companionship, and a promised glorious eternal future ahead of them. There was only one stipulation and that stipulation did not deprive them of any of those things just mentioned. Not to eat from a certain tree. This tree didn't follow them around. Neither did they have to go near it or see it. Yet Eve chose to constantly look upon it and be near it.

BTW
Eating of a fruit might on the surface appear to be a ridiculously non-harmful thing. But decision to eat requirement involves a rejection of God as their father, protector and ruler. It involves a decision or a demand to go it on their own. Furthermore, believing Satanic accusations against God would cast them on his side of the controversy. Make them his allies. In short, the choice was totally theirs and the consequences were what followed.


This naturally raises the question (which I addressed in my previous post): Why did God forfeit power to such an evil person like Satan?

To allow for the questions or issues raised by the human angelic rebellion to be resolved. A resolution which demands time.

I doubt you are asserting that Satan's powers are derived independently of God.

All power is biblically described as originating with God.


Moreover, why would God hold individuals to the same standard that he held the alleged Adam & Eve when we are in no way responsible for whatever it is they are said to have egregiously done?

We aren't being held to the same standard. That's what Jesus died for-so that such a standard can no longer work against us.

No. An abusive spouse pays mere lip-service to reconciliation much like Yahweh does.

That's because you are ignoring God's provision of Jesus' Ransom sacrifice which liberates us from condemnation and makes total reconciliation between the ID and mankind possible.

HE is directly responsible for this mess through (at the very least) negligent creation yet he deflects responsibility onto the abused party.


Creatures who are gifted with freedom of choice are responsible for the consequences of their behavior. You seem to want it otherwise? Which of course requires permissive parenting. Which is recognized by social scientists as a defective parental modus operandi.

Which is why I fail to see the utility in assuming what happens after we die save for the obvious.

Well, it depends what you mean by utility. All religious beliefs have utility. Otherwise they wouldn't be in existence.


And skeptics like me refuse to accept them as anything more than possibilities, that is until such can be demonstrated through physical evidence. (Whether the multi-verses of M theory are substantiated by evidence I do not know. I admittingly know very little about cosmology) In either case, I couldn't care less what such scientists think of me any less than what I care about zealous Christians who scream hell-fire about my alleged "immortal soul".

OK



According to Christianity (at least traditional Christianity) Jesus IS God and salvation is SOLELY through Jesus ergo one must confess the name of Jesus (no matter how you decide to pronounce it) in order to be saved. One must first be cognizant of the actual man-god Jesus, and subsequently believe in that man-god's divine side.

Not so.

Prior to the Nicene Council that PRESENT tradition wasn't universally accepted among Christians. Even After the Nicene Council it took military action against the European Germanic Christians in order to force them to accept later became traditional. Also, what is traditional isn't necessarily what was originally taught. That's the appeal to tradition fallacy.
In any case, you are right in saying that acceptance of Jesus Ransom sacrifice is viewed as necessary for salvation by all Christians.


I quoted you where you stated two contradictory things concerning the ability of humans to logically deduce 'god' so you're going to have to do more than merely assert that you didn't. Show me how I misunderstood you.


Well, I quoted the scripture that states created things themselves should be suffice to indicate an ID. You claim I brought up two things which can't be reconciled and make that impossible?

[Friend]

Hello, Is there anyone out there? I am a newbie and this is my first post. Just posting to see how this system operates. This is also my first forum.

[bokonon]

Christ, everybody's out looking for you. Where the hell have you been?

[Safe-Keeper]

Hello, Friend, welcome to the... Internet, I guess:p.

[Friend]

Thank you, Thank you. Have been on the internet for quite awhile, but not on the forums. There is so much to read and learn; still not sure I want to enter into forums, but this does seem like a sporty one, eh! However, I am not a northerner with the "eh." Just a solid southerner. Is there intelligent life here or do I need to seek somewhere else?

[The Nimble Pianist]

Radrook: We're talking past each other because you seem to think that I'm speaking specifically about Adam and Eve (as if these two alleged people represent every human being ever to exist).

Even if we assume that Adam and Eve were real people and they really transgressed against God's commandments, why should any of us be held responsible for something that happened thousands of years prior to our births? How can you reconcile this with a loving, *merciful* and just God?

If you don't attempt to reconcile this, or you simply don't believe in the Original Sin (like Mormons and other fringe Christians do) then surely my comparisons of God to an abusive spouse holds up.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Thank you, Thank you. Have been on the internet for quite awhile, but not on the forums. There is so much to read and learn; still not sure I want to enter into forums, but this does seem like a sporty one, eh! However, I am not a northerner with the "eh." Just a solid southerner. Is there intelligent life here or do I need to seek somewhere else?

Nope. No intelligent life here, just a bunch of robo-typists :p

[edge]

Christ, everybody's out looking for you. Where the hell have you been?

L.M.A.O...! Good one

[Malerin]

Thanks for the response, Radrook, but I think you're glossing over some of the less savory stuff in the Old Testament.

[The Man]

God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable.



Well, excuse me!!!

Doesn’t the pursuit of evidence for some god detract from faith in that god? Isn’t faith an acceptance without prevailing evidence or even in spite of contradictory evidence? Now I have no problems with whatever one might have faith in, an aspect of freedom and freedom of religion, that I wholeheartedly have faith in (actions however, I might hold against someone). The problem I have is an expression of faith that asserts or requires prevailing evidence and thus is not true faith. Certainly, doubt in faith produces a need for such evidence which only expresses to me that those people of faith seeking or expounding evidence for that faith are in doubt of their faith. Unfortunately, as a skeptic and often a cynic I usualy have at least some faith in doubt and some doubt in my faith, which could lead to some possible alternative, yet perhaps doubtful conclusion.


From a biblical standpoint Adam and Eve were not predestined to fail. Instead they chose to fail. The Jesus Ransom sacrifice was to fix what they chose to disrupt. Furthermore, is a creature impervious to failure created without making it a machine? True, God is described as having limitless power. But there are things that due to being self-contradictory or inherently paradoxical aren't possible regardless of how much power is applied. The squaring of a circle is an example. Do you by any chance see a way of making a creature that has free will that cannot choose to disobey and bring upon itself the consequences of his own choices?



Now if I remember correctly was not the sacrifice of Christ to take the place of the “mercy shield” the cap on the arc of the covenant that hid the sins of man (including original sin) from god? Please correct me if I am mistaken.

As far as power goes, as you say it is free will that then comes into play. An aspect of ulimited power would also be the ability to limit ones self, an ability that those of us with limited power even have. As I like to say free will is the stick that god created that even he can not break. So some entity with limitless power could certainly do likewise. However, now comes the conundrum with omnipotence or knowing some ultimate outcome, free will loses any power or in other words the stick was broken before it was given to us. The only way that free will is in fact free is if the outcome is not determined until some choice of action is taken, so free will and an omnipotent granter of free will are in direct contradiction. The only way that free will is actually free is if god can lose in the end. Certainly, the augment could be made that my free will really only determines my fate, but then that is only a limited will or a will just limited to myself and perhaps some influenced by me. If my free will or a combined free will can not result in some change in some omnipotent all powerful entities intended ultimate outcome then that foreknowledge belies any professed supposition of free will. In that case it is a very short broken stick that we have been given and the crappy end of it at that, in this theistic consideration.

[Macoy]

Creatures who are gifted with freedom of choice are responsible for the consequences of their behavior. You seem to want it otherwise? Which of course requires permissive parenting. Which is recognized by social scientists as a defective parental modus operandi.

This is an appeal to authority. If I have your attention, Radrook, please tell me if you believe that the wine created by jesus was incorruptible?

[Radrook]

Well, excuse me!!!

Not my words the Bible's.

Doesn’t the pursuit of evidence for some god detract from faith in that god? Isn’t faith an acceptance without prevailing evidence or even in spite of contradictory evidence?

That's blind faith where absolutely no evidence exists and one believes anyway. That isn't the type of faith described in the Bible. The type of faith described in the Bible is faith or trust in what God promises based on fulfilled prophecy, and the perception of a ID in the way things are made. The assurance expectations of things as yet unseen as Paul expressed it which we are later told is based on God's promises which never fail as demonstrated by fulfilled prophecy.

BTW
Christians don't perceive any truly convincing contradictory
evidence. It's all explainable with the parameters of the faith. If it weren't then belief would be impossible due to cognitive
dissonance.


Now I have no problems with whatever one might have faith in, an aspect of freedom and freedom of religion, that I wholeheartedly have faith in (actions however, I might hold against someone). The problem I have is an expression of faith that asserts or requires prevailing evidence and thus is not true faith. Certainly, doubt in faith produces a need for such evidence which only expresses to me that those people of faith seeking or expounding evidence for that faith are in doubt of their faith. Unfortunately, as a skeptic and often a cynic I usually have at least some faith in doubt and some doubt in my faith, which could lead to some possible alternative, yet perhaps doubtful conclusion.

Then we would have to accuse Paul as faithless since he said that God's existence is evident by the things made. That sets up a very untenable situation. Once we condemn Paul as faithless based on that statement, or his other statement where he tells us that prophecy fulfilled assures us of God's promises, another reference to faith being strengthened or established by perceived evidence, then wee would have to say Paul was misguided. Or else call what he wrote non-biblical. Which of course it isn't.

BTW
Paul himself had been converted to Christianity based on what he saw and heard while on his way to persecute Christians.

Peter said his faith was partly based on having seen Jesus's raised from the dead. He speaks to others who also are said to have witnmesses Jesus' ressurection.

1 Peter 1:21
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.


Now if I remember correctly was not the sacrifice of Christ to take the place of the “mercy shield” the cap on the arc of the covenant that hid the sins of man (including original sin) from god? Please correct me if I am mistaken.

The NT doesn't teach that concept. The Apostle Paul explained that the Tabernacle in the wilderness, with its courtyard, it holy and most holy compartments and all other things pertaining to it were symbols or prophetic shadows of the reality which was to be the Ransom sacrifice of Christ for our sins. The high priest who entered the most holy with the blood of animals typified Jesus. The most holy or innermost compartment for example is said to have typified heaven itself where Christ appeared with the value of his shed blood. This explanation is found in the book of Hebrews.


As far as power goes, as you say it is free will that then comes into play. An aspect of unlimited power would also be the ability to limit ones self, an ability that those of us with limited power even have. As I like to say free will is the stick that god created that even he cannot break. So some entity with limitless power could certainly do likewise. However, now comes the conundrum with omnipotence or knowing some ultimate outcome, free will loses any power or in other words the stick was broken before it was given to us. .


That assumes that God allowed the nullification of free will by allowing himself to know beforehand what was to happen. That also assumes that knowing what an unpredictable perfect free-willed creature will do is possible. We can predict what ants will do under any given situation because we have something to base our predictions on. Even flawed humans can be predicted to behave in certain ways by weighing their strengths against their weaknesses. But a perfect human has no weaknesses or sinful tendencies upon which to base a prediction. Such a creature only exhibits a tendency to do good. In fact, that's why God said his creation was good. If it had been inherently flawed, he would not have made that statement.

The above is one explanation which is given in response to the situation you describe.


The only way that free will is in fact free is if the outcome is not determined until some choice of action is taken, so free will and an omnipotent granter of free will are in direct contradiction.

That's what is understood to have taken place in Eden. Man was given a choice ands he chose and determined the outcome by that choice.


The only way that free will is actually free is if god can lose in the end.

Certainly, the argument could be made that my free will really only determines my fate, but then that is only a limited will or a will just limited to myself and perhaps some influenced by me. If my free will or a combined free will cannot result in some change in some omnipotent all powerful entities intended ultimate outcome then that foreknowledge belies any professed supposition of free will. In that case it is a very short broken stick that we have been given and the crappy end of it at that, in this theistic consideration.

Quite to the contrary. It is only if God wins by having his plan of redemption totally fulfilled via the restoration of all things to their originally intended condition that we can have the free will he intended us to have. Presently we sicken and die although we would prefer not to. That limits our free will by removing us from the scenario of the living. Only when God abolishes death will we be rid of that limitation. As well as the limitations of sickness and our tendency to do evil to ourselves and others. The defeat ofd Satan via his destruction will also rid us of his machinations which tend to enroach on our free will. So taking all this into account, God is a liberator.

BTW

Actually, our will is never 100% free in the sense of never being influence or limited by exterior factors. There is health, heredity, social status, government, law enforcement agencies, laws of nature, such as gravity and time which all work to limit what we can aspire to do or can do in every given moment of our lives. So even if we take God totally out of the picture we are still left with factors which limit us.

So free will, or the ability to choose between or among alternatives, was meant to be enjoyed within the parameters of such limitations. If indeed we insist on total free will, then we are insisting on anarchy since that's what would ensue if everyone had total free will, Fortunately such isn't the case.

[calebprime]

from Radrook's post, above:

"God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable."

He has me on ignore.

No, some Christians (such as Radrook) see denial (dissent about basic doctrines) as inexcusable, I believe, because it disrupts group cohesion.

The idea that a creator god would see anything about free intellectual inquiry as inexcusable seems unbelievable.

Also unbelievable: that we have any idea what God wants.

[kerikiwi]

Why can't modern humans; you know; the ones who split the atom, discovered the structure of DNA and who traveled to the moon; see through such an idiotic mythology?

Well, I didn't split the atom, discover the structure of DNA or travel to the moon, and I see through it!

[Safe-Keeper]

"God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable."

He has me on ignore.

No, some Christians (such as Radrook) see denial (dissent about basic doctrines) as inexcusable, I believe, because it disrupts group cohesion.

The idea that a creator god would see anything about free intellectual inquiry as inexcusable seems unbelievable.Most tyrants see dissenting inquiry, thought, speech and action as inexcusable and worthy of severe punishment. Mao made dissenters, real or imagined, stand in highly uncomfortable postures until they passed out. The Soviets sent intellectuals to work camps. Hitler had Sophie Scholl beheaded for 'planting the seed' of revolt by spreading anti-Nazi leaflets. Yahweh had the worshipers of the Golden Calf stoned or massacred by swordsmen. Same soup, different bowl.

Ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery.

[Radrook]

Well, I didn't split the atom, discover the structure of DNA or travel to the moon, and I see through the idiocy of the atheistic pop-goes-the weasel abiogenesis idea!

[six7s]

Well, I didn't split the atom, discover the structure of DNA or travel to the moon, and I see through the idiocy of the atheistic pop-goes-the weasel abiogenesis idea!Aha! Is that a spot of Reverse-Badgering whilst invoking a retrograde Swedish inversion to Elephant & Castle?

Or are you playing an altogether different version of the game? :confused:

[Olowkow]

No no no no, not idiocy, Radrook, just some very bright guys who don't have all the answers yet, er, like you do. All in good time. You would be amazed to know what is already understood about how life might have arisen, but that takes work and effort to actually find the stuff to read, protein folding etc. Many of these bright guys go to church on Sundays too, many don't. So what's your point?

[Dysphemist]

Personally I don't buy that there is an omnipotent god with a plan that includes pain, suffering and death for 9 year olds. If there was he would be one sick bastard. I don't care how many lolipops he has in his waiting room.
I hope that this girl does believe in heaven and god, and that when she gets past everything there will be something good waiting for her. Just some hope to make the things that she will go through easier to bear.

[six7s]

when she gets past everything :confused: Please explain what that means; is it a euphemism for dies or a rather contorted way of saying when she goes into remission or something else?

[Dysphemist]

:confused: Please explain what that means; is it a euphemism for dies or a rather contorted way of saying when she goes into remission or something else?

Euphemism for all the suffering that she will go through before death and then, yes, death itself.

[six7s]

I hope that this girl does believe in heaven and god, and that when she gets past everything <insert>all the suffering that she will go through before death and then, yes, death itself</insert> there will be something good waiting for her. Just some hope to make the things that she will go through easier to bear.

Thank you

So... unsubstantiated woo, then?

Serious question: don't you feel any compulsion to resist spouting inane waffle when discussing real life dramas?

[kerikiwi]

Well, I didn't split the atom, discover the structure of DNA or travel to the moon, and I see through the idiocy of the atheistic pop-goes-the weasel abiogenesis idea!

Can you
1. Summarise said idiocy.
2. Explain how you see through it.

[Safe-Keeper]

Thank you

So... unsubstantiated woo, then?

Serious question: don't you feel any compulsion to resist spouting inane waffle when discussing real life dramas?So now we're not allowed to even hope for a 'happy ending' or 'new beginning' after death? Come on, six7s.

[Radrook]

Can you
1. Summarise said idiocy.
2. Explain how you see through it.



I'm not the only one who sees it that way. There are scientists who see it that way as well. So in response I'll let this scientist, Jerry Bergman, give you his reasons.

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible

Jerry Bergman has seven degrees, including in biology, psychology, and evaluation and research, from Wayne State University, in Detroit, Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Medical College of Ohio in Toledo. He has taught at Bowling Green State University, the University of Toledo, Medical College of Ohio and at other colleges and universities. He currently teaches biology, microbiology, biochemistry, and human anatomy at the college level and is a research associate involved in research in the area of cancer genetics. He has published widely in both popular and scientific journals.

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

[Freethinker]

I'm not the only one who sees it that way. There are scientists who see it that way as well. So in response I'll let this scientist, Jerry Bergman, give you his reasons.

Scientist? Hardly! Professional student at community colleges is more like it.

In 1992 Bergman received his Ph.D. in human biology from Columbia Pacific University, a now-defunct nonaccredited distance learning school. Columbia Pacific University lost its state approval to operate in 1995 and was ordered to close permanently in October 2000 by the State of California. A court invalidated all degrees awarded after 1997 and ordered the student fees refunded. Bergman has written a detailed perspective on the school's fall from grace.[


He also studied for a PhD in measurement and evaluation, minor in psychology from Wayne State,

Studying for a PhD is quite different from receiving it. This guy has done everything but find a field to specialize in. He's tried a little of this and a little of that and really hasn't reached any level of expertise in any field.

[kerikiwi]

I'm not the only one who sees it that way. There are scientists who see it that way as well. So in response I'll let this scientist, Jerry Bergman, give you his reasons.

No, no, no. I was not asking Jerry. I was asking you:
can you
1 Summarise said idiocy.
2 Explain how you see through it.

[six7s]

No, no, no. I was not asking Jerry. I was asking you
Nominated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4297732&posted=1#post4297732)!

[Dysphemist]

Thank you

So... unsubstantiated woo, then?

Serious question: don't you feel any compulsion to resist spouting inane waffle when discussing real life dramas?

:confused:
umm, ok..

Do you feel the compulsion to get aggressive at any chance you have when it comes to other people's views, that don't match up with your own?


If someone was dying (in this kind of situation) I'd want that person to believe that, as Safe-Keeper said, there was going to be a happy ending. If believing that there was a heaven made the person happy I would encourage them, despite what I believe and what you consider to be "unsubstantiated woo".

[six7s]

Serious question: don't you feel any compulsion to resist spouting inane waffle when discussing real life dramas?:confused:What are you confused about? It's a very simple and straightforward question

Possible answers:
Yes, I do feel some compulsion to resist spouting inane waffle when discussing real life dramas
No, I don't feel some compulsion to resist spouting inane waffle when discussing real life dramas

umm, ok..OK? So where's your answer to my question?

Do you feel the compulsion to get aggressive at any chance you have when it comes to other people's views, that don't match up with your own?No, I don't

Why do you ask?

If someone was dying (in this kind of situation) I'd want that person to believe that, as Safe-Keeper said, there was going to be a happy ending.
Fairy nuff

Why?
If believing that there was a heaven made the person happy I would encourage them, despite what I believe and what you consider to be "unsubstantiated woo".Again, fairy nuff

Again, why would you encourage them to believe in a your god and not, for example, a fluffy pink unicorn that is anxiously waiting to escort them - first class - on a trip to Fantasy Island?

[Darth Rotor]

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is a beautiful allegory that has been debased with one of the dumbest concepts ever dreamt up by man.

God created humans.
He created them perfect

Oh? Seems to me He created them fallible. On purpose.

Far more amusing that way. Also, far more rewarding when they get it right, as well. ;)

DR

[Dysphemist]

Again, why would you encourage them to believe in a your god and not, for example, a fluffy pink unicorn that is anxiously waiting to escort them - first class - on a trip to Fantasy Island?

I've already said. If it made them happier to think they were going somewhere nice, and it was not having any negative impact on anyone else, what is so bad about that belief?

"...believe in a your god and not" - I don't understand this? I never said I believed in heaven/god if that is what you're saying?

[Safe-Keeper]

Again, why would you encourage them to believe in a your god and not, for example, a fluffy pink unicorn that is anxiously waiting to escort them - first class - on a trip to Fantasy Island? What's wrong with believing as you lay dying that there's a unicorn waiting to bring you to a fairy land? As it happens, I lost a friend to leukemia this spring and afterward I read a wonderful nonfiction book1 about a girl, aged 18, who died from the same illness. The girl is a nonbeliever, that's the impression I get from the book anyhow, but upon her death she is not afraid to die because she believers she's going to an afterlife she and her mom bases off the fantasy land of Nangijala from Astrid Lindgren's The Brothers Lionheart. This belief in the fantasy land of a kids' book never caused either of them to fly an airplane into a building, bomb an abortion clinic, hate homosexuals or vote against stem cell research. All it did was comfort her on her death bed, and after her passing the faith of her family members in this afterlife probably faded anyway.

Again, all her shortly lived belief did was comfort her as she lay dying at the age of 19 from a horrific illness, after having been terribly sick for more than a year.

What can you possibly have against that?

1Idas dans, 2005, ISBN 9788252561470

ETA: Don't say 'encourage'. Your reply seems to be addressing a poster who said he hoped that there was an afterlife for the girl discussed in the OP. Simply hoping something on behalf of someone else, without their knowledge, can't possibly encourage them to believe that thing. ETA2: OK, I see it now.

[six7s]

I've already said. If it made them happier to think they were going somewhere nice, and it was not having any negative impact on anyone else, what is so bad about that belief?

"...believe in a your god and not" - I don't understand this? I never said I believed in heaven/god if that is what you're saying?

I was lead, by you, to understand that the following is in accordance with your world view:
I hope that this girl does believe in heaven and god, and that when she gets past everything <insert>all the suffering that she will go through before death and then, yes, death itself</insert> there will be something good waiting for her. Just some hope to make the things that she will go through easier to bear.

You now say
"I never said I believed in heaven/god "

This is NOT the same as saying
I do not believe in heaven/god

Consequently, despite ample opportunity for you to be clear and concise, I have no idea what you believe

----------------

Two sincere requests:

Please take responsibility for the efficient and effective delivery of your own thoughts
Please actively refrain from writing ambiguous posts

[Safe-Keeper]

I think I've been misunderstanding six7s a bit here. I didn't catch the "I hope she believes in heaven and God" part, which is, though it's of course what you'd hope for as a Christian, needlessly specific. Still nothing to make a fuzz about, in my opinion, though.

[six7s]

@geneee:

Are you a troll?

I ask merely because you have yet to provide a meaningful answer to several questions that I directed to you (questions that were - I think - posed in a simple, clear and civil manner)

[Dysphemist]

I was lead, by you, to understand that the following is in accordance with your world view:


You now say
"I never said I believed in heaven/god "

This is NOT the same as saying
I do not believe in heaven/god

Consequently, despite ample opportunity for you to be clear and concise, I have no idea what you believe

What I believe has no impact on what we're talking about, and I already said that also:

If believing that there was a heaven made the person happy I would encourage them, despite what I believe

If it makes you happy, I'll say anyway that I do not believe in God. Why did you assume that I do? Would you assume that someone who stands up for homosexual rights is homosexual?


A sincere request from me:
Why would you not want someone to be happy on their deathbed if that happiness came from religious belief? Especially if it was a nine year old girl who I presume has done nothing wrong in her life.

I think I've been misunderstanding six7s a bit here. I didn't catch the "I hope she believes in heaven and God" part, which is, though it's of course what you'd hope for as a Christian, needlessly specific. Still nothing to make a fuzz about, in my opinion, though.

Sorry, I meant heaven as the concept of a divine, blissful afterlife. I suppose a belief in the afterlife would nessessitate belief in some kind god or supernatural force.

[Dysphemist]

@geneee:

Are you a troll?

I ask merely because you have yet to provide a meaningful answer to several questions that I directed to you (questions that were - I think - posed in a simple, clear and civil manner)

Wow. That isn't hypocritical.

If it made them happier to think they were going somewhere nice, and it was not having any negative impact on anyone else, what is so bad about that belief?

Show me where you've answered that, please.


TBH, I didn't think the first "serious question" was worth answering. So I didn't answer it.

Edit: And yes, I am a troll. Troll warrior.

[six7s]

What I believe has no impact on what we're talking aboutYeah... right... so... remind me... how do meaningful discussions work again?

and I already said that also:
If believing that there was a heaven made the person happy I would encourage them, despite what I believe
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssss....

To which I replied with a simple question, one that you have still ignored:
Again, why would you encourage them to believe in a your god and not, for example, a fluffy pink unicorn that is anxiously waiting to escort them - first class - on a trip to Fantasy Island?
Any chance of an answer?

If it makes you happy, I'll say anyway that I do not believe in God. Why did you assume that I do?Oh, I dunno... how about because you write with the clarity, precision and depth of a wooist

Would you assume that someone who stands up for homosexual rights is homosexual?No

Why do you ask? Is it because you can are trying to subtly insinuate that there is at least a tenuous link? Be brave, spit it out. I can't bite you

A sincere request from me:
Why would you not want someone to be happy on their deathbed if that happiness came from religious belief? Especially if it was a nine year old girl who I presume has done nothing wrong in her life.Try breaking it down:
Would I want someone to be unhappy on their deathbed?
No
Would I begrudge someone deathbed happiness from religious belief?
See above
Would I begrudge a nine year old girl deathbed happiness from religious belief? See above



Sorry, I meant heaven as the concept of a divine, blissful afterlife. I suppose a belief in the afterlife would nessessitate belief in some kind god or supernatural force.You suppose that whilst not believing in god? Hmmm... I'm confused... Please remind me... do you believe in a god?

[Dysphemist]

Yeah... right... so... remind me... how do meaningful discussions work again?

What I believe has no impact on this discussion because it comes down to what the person dying believes. Is that very hard to understand?


To which I replied with a simple question, one that you have still ignored:
Again, why would you encourage them to believe in a your god and not, for example, a fluffy pink unicorn that is anxiously waiting to escort them - first class - on a trip to Fantasy Island?
Any chance of an answer?

My god? I don't have a god. I'd be happy if they wanted to believe in unicorns if it made them happy. I used the Christian concept of heaven because it is the most predominant concept of the afterlife in Western culture. It could be any afterlife, as long as it makes the person happy while they are living I would encourage them to believe it.

No

Why do you ask? Is it because you can are trying to subtly insinuate that there is at least a tenuous link? Be brave, spit it out. I can't bite you

There's a link because you assumed that because I supported a theistic belief I must be a theist. That's all I was trying to get across. :)

Try breaking it down:
Would I want someone to be unhappy on their deathbed?
No
Would I begrudge someone deathbed happiness from religious belief?
See above
Would I begrudge a nine year old girl deathbed happiness from religious belief? See above
So you wouldn't mind if someone held religious belief on their deathbed if it made them happy? You agree with me? Why didn't you just say that from the start instead of nitpicking about euphemisms?


You suppose that whilst not believing in god? Hmmm... I'm confused... Please remind me... do you believe in a god?
:confused::confused:
I'm not sure what you want me to say? Admit that I'm really a closet Christian?

[six7s]

What I believe has no impact on this discussion
So? I wasn't referring merely to your beliefs... the way you express your thoughts has a significant impact on the meaningfulnessnessness or otherwise of this thread

My god? I don't have a god. I'd be happy if they wanted to believe in unicorns if it made them happy. I used the Christian concept of heaven because it is the most predominant concept of the afterlife in Western culture. It could be any afterlife, as long as it makes the person happy while they are living I would encourage them to believe it.

Yeah? If you really think that gels with the following, then... I'm stumped

[QUOTE=geneeee;4297452]I hope that this girl does believe in heaven and god, and that when she gets past everything there will be something good waiting for her. Just some hope to make the things that she will go through easier to bear.

"I hope that this girl does believe in heaven and god"

That, in my book, is woo-speak - no matter how much spin you apply in retrospect

Why didn't you just say that from the start instead of nitpicking about euphemisms?When did you stop bashing your bishop?

:confused::confused:
I'm not sure what you want me to say? Admit that I'm really a closet Christian?You do as you please, but doing what you want involves posting in this thread, please try to be clear, concise and consistent :)

[Dysphemist]

After re-reading the first post I made in the thread I think it's pretty straight forward what I meant. More so after I clarified with you the meaning of "gets past everything" (you were able to pick up the euphemism though, that's something).

It was a reply to RandFan's OP, in which he says that he doesn't believe in an "omnipotent god" working out there. I never said I believed that there was, regardless of how you want to misinterpret what I say to try and find error... I don't really know why seeming as it looks like you agree with me.

Just some hope to make the things that she will go through easier to bear.
- Complicated.

[The Man]

Not my words the Bible's.


That's blind faith where absolutely no evidence exists and one believes anyway. That isn't the type of faith described in the Bible. The type of faith described in the Bible is faith or trust in what God promises based on fulfilled prophecy, and the perception of a ID in the way things are made. The assurance expectations of things as yet unseen as Paul expressed it which we are later told is based on God's promises which never fail as demonstrated by fulfilled prophecy.


BTW
Christians don't perceive any truly convincing contradictory
evidence. It's all explainable with the parameters of the faith. If it weren't then belief would be impossible due to cognitive
dissonance.

Now just how is that faith, you just described, not blind? Simply attributing everything as an element of ones faith is just blinding ones self to alternative explanations.


Then we would have to accuse Paul as faithless since he said that God's existence is evident by the things made.

That accusation works for me, but the presumption is that those things were made by God. If you what to call that faith then it sounds blind to me.


That sets up a very untenable situation. Once we condemn Paul as faithless based on that statement, or his other statement where he tells us that prophecy fulfilled assures us of God's promises, another reference to faith being strengthened or established by perceived evidence, then wee would have to say Paul was misguided. Or else call what he wrote non-biblical. Which of course it isn't.

Well then that is not faith but a conclusion drawn from evidence and unfortunately without consideration of alternative conclusions even conclusion drawn from evidence (particularly when all evidence can be considered a supporting aspect of one particular conclusion) can be just as blind as faith.



BTW
Paul himself had been converted to Christianity based on what he saw and heard while on his way to persecute Christians.

Peter said his faith was partly based on having seen Jesus's raised from the dead. He speaks to others who also are said to have witnmesses Jesus' ressurection.


1 Peter 1:21
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.


What God or Gods did Paul ascribe to before? Would that be gaining faith from evidence or simply changing faiths based on some perception of evidence that is believed to require faith, or perhaps even an economy of faith, moving from a belief in multiple gods to just one.



The NT doesn't teach that concept. The Apostle Paul explained that the Tabernacle in the wilderness, with its courtyard, it holy and most holy compartments and all other things pertaining to it were symbols or prophetic shadows of the reality which was to be the Ransom sacrifice of Christ for our sins. The high priest who entered the most holy with the blood of animals typified Jesus. The most holy or innermost compartment for example is said to have typified heaven itself where Christ appeared with the value of his shed blood. This explanation is found in the book of Hebrews.

So what I related is a viable alternative theistic explanation?



That assumes that God allowed the nullification of free will by allowing himself to know beforehand what was to happen.


No it does not ‘assume’ that, such beforehand knowledge is explicit in such statements as “where he tells us that prophecy fulfilled assures us of God's promises”. Prophecy is an assertion of what will happen and that such prophecy fulfilled is evidence of some “promises” requires some predetermination of that promised outcome.



That also assumes that knowing what an unpredictable perfect free-willed creature will do is possible.

I think what you meant to say should have been “That also assumes that knowing what an unpredictable perfect free-willed creature will do is ‘NOT’ possible.”

It does not ‘assume’ that either, that is inherent in your own statement. If a “perfect free-willed creature” is in fact “unpredictable” then by definition predicting what such a creature “will do is” is not possible or the creature would be predictable (at least to some degree).



We can predict what ants will do under any given situation because we have something to base our predictions on. Even flawed humans can be predicted to behave in certain ways by weighing their strengths against their weaknesses.






But a perfect human has no weaknesses or sinful tendencies upon which to base a prediction. Such a creature only exhibits a tendency to do good.
“weaknesses or sinful tendencies upon which to base a prediction.”, so you follow that statement by making the prediction “Such a creature only exhibits a tendency to do good.”?




In fact, that's why God said his creation was good. If it had been inherently flawed, he would not have made that statement.

You do not perceive this as “the nullification of free will by allowing himself to know beforehand what was to happen.”?


The above is one explanation which is given in response to the situation you describe.

Then please describe any other situation where you feel “that prophecy fulfilled assures us of God's promises” is not “the nullification of free will by allowing himself to know beforehand what was to happen”, because that one explanation above certainly did not demonstrate your (or Gods) assertions as consistent with each other.




That's what is understood to have taken place in Eden. Man was given a choice ands he chose and determined the outcome by that choice.

Well “God said his creation was good. If it had been inherently flawed, he would not have made that statement”. While “a perfect human has no weaknesses or sinful tendencies upon which to base a prediction. Such a creature only exhibits a tendency to do good”. So how is that choice a “sin” or “original sin”, and after Eden when that choice has passed how are the descendents of man tainted by the “original sin” of a choice they did not make, forcing one to atone for “sins” not of their choosing is not free will but a unilateral condemnation or prejudice requiring some redemption.




Quite to the contrary. It is only if God wins by having his plan of redemption totally fulfilled via the restoration of all things to their originally intended condition that we can have the free will he intended us to have. Presently we sicken and die although we would prefer not to. That limits our free will by removing us from the scenario of the living. Only when God abolishes death will we be rid of that limitation. As well as the limitations of sickness and our tendency to do evil to ourselves and others. The defeat ofd Satan via his destruction will also rid us of his machinations which tend to enroach on our free will. So taking all this into account, God is a liberator.

So now you say that we do not have free will since we can not choose not to die. How is elimination of “our tendency to do evil to ourselves and others” free will. You have simply replaced one set of “limitations” with another. It would seem “God is a liberator” much in the same sense that Stalin and Mao Zetung were “liberators” all they liberate you from is freedom.





BTW

Actually, our will is never 100% free in the sense of never being influence or limited by exterior factors. There is health, heredity, social status, government, law enforcement agencies, laws of nature, such as gravity and time which all work to limit what we can aspire to do or can do in every given moment of our lives. So even if we take God totally out of the picture we are still left with factors which limit us.

There is a big difference between not being “100% free” and just being some pawn in a predetermined prophetically promised outcome.


So free will, or the ability to choose between or among alternatives, was meant to be enjoyed within the parameters of such limitations. If indeed we insist on total free will, then we are insisting on anarchy since that's what would ensue if everyone had total free will, Fortunately such isn't the case.

No, we are not “insisting on anarchy” (please get some new straw) just on the possibility of anarchy, having that possibility does not mean we have to select it. Not being able to select it makes its non-selection meaningless (as far as believing we did not select it) and thus the outcome (anarchy or not anarchy) is predetermined.

[six7s]

...regardless of how you want to misinterpret what I say... Project, much?

geneeee, if/when you ever have a point to make, I sincerely suggest that you at least try to refrain from putting straw in the mouths of others

[Safe-Keeper]

To which I replied with a simple question, one that you have still ignored:You mean like you have ignored my two last posts.

[six7s]

To which I replied with a simple question, one that you have still ignored:You mean like you have ignored my two last posts.No. I don't mean 'like I have ignored your two last posts', simply because your last two posts don't seem (to me) to be wrtitten in a way as to elicit a response from me

But... as I am obviously wrong, I will try to remedy that, forthwith


What's wrong with believing as you lay dying that there's a unicorn waiting to bring you to a fairy land? Nothing. If you expect a more detailed response from me then I'm gonna need some pointers

As it happens, I lost a friend to leukemia this spring and afterward I read a wonderful nonfiction book1 about a girl, aged 18, who died from the same illness. The girl is a nonbeliever, that's the impression I get from the book anyhow, but upon her death she is not afraid to die because she believers she's going to an afterlife she and her mom bases off the fantasy land of Nangijala from Astrid Lindgren's The Brothers Lionheart. This belief in the fantasy land of a kids' book never caused either of them to fly an airplane into a building, bomb an abortion clinic, hate homosexuals or vote against stem cell research. All it did was comfort her on her death bed, and after her passing the faith of her family members in this afterlife probably faded anyway.

Again, all her shortly lived belief did was comfort her as she lay dying at the age of 19 from a horrific illness, after having been terribly sick for more than a year.

What can you possibly have against that?Nothing. Do you assume I would? :confused:

1Idas dans, 2005, ISBN 9788252561470

ETA: Don't say 'encourage'. Why not?

Your reply seems to be addressing a poster who said he hoped that there was an afterlife for the girl discussed in the OP.Yep

Simply hoping something on behalf of someone else, without their knowledge, can't possibly encourage them to believe that thing.I fail to see the relevance of this comment

ETA2: OK, I see it now.
OK :confused: You see what?

I think I've been misunderstanding six7s a bit here. Y'aint the only one :p

I didn't catch the "I hope she believes in heaven and God" part, which is, though it's of course what you'd hope for as a Christian, needlessly specific. Still nothing to make a fuzz about, in my opinion, though.Cool


Sincere apologies for failing to respond in a deep and meaningful way... the reason I didn't respond earlier is that I thought:
your questions were general/rhetorical
I had nothing worthwhile to add

[Radrook]

Now just how is that faith, you just described, not blind? Simply attributing everything as an element of ones faith is just blinding ones self to alternative explanations.

It's not blind because there are justifiable reasons for it. Blind faith would require belief despite the absence of any evidence to support it.


That accusation works for me,....

Which proves?

....but the presumption is that those things were made by God. If you what to call that faith then it sounds blind to me.

The conclusion that the universe is the product of an ID is based on inductive reasoning-not blind faith.

BTW
Where's the inductive evidence for abiogenesis?


Well then that is not faith but a conclusion drawn from evidence

It might not fit YOUR definition of faith but that's the definition given in the Bible.


....and unfortunately without consideration of alternative conclusions even conclusion drawn from evidence (particularly when all evidence can be considered a supporting aspect of one particular conclusion) can be just as blind as faith.

That's a misrepresentation. All counter-evidence and alternative conclusions are evaluated. However, if they are glaringly illogical or based on dubious data, or the data really doesn't warrant the conclusions put forth as fact, then they are rejected.


What God or Gods did Paul ascribe to before?

Paul had been a Pharisee.


Would that be gaining faith from evidence or simply changing faiths based on some perception of evidence that is believed to require faith, or perhaps even an economy of faith, moving from a belief in multiple gods to just one.

I have no justifiable reason to doubt Paul's explanation as to why he accepted Christianity.

So what I related is a viable alternative theistic explanation?

Not if it goes contrary to what is written.


No it does not ‘assume’ that, such beforehand knowledge is explicit in such statements as “where he tells us that prophecy fulfilled assures us of God's promises.” Prophecy is an assertion of what will happen and that such prophecy fulfilled is evidence of some “promises” requires some predetermination of that promised outcome.

Looking forward and seeing what humans choose to do is predetermination? How so?

I think what you meant to say should have been “That also assumes that knowing what an unpredictable perfect free-willed creature will do is ‘NOT’ possible.”

But one assumption forces scriptural moral inconsistency while the other doesn't.

It does not ‘assume’ that either, that is inherent in your own statement. If a “perfect free-willed creature” is in fact “unpredictable” then by definition predicting what such a creature “will do is” is not possible or the creature would be predictable (at least to some degree).

Knowing what a creature is [capable of doing if he chooses to misuse his faculties isn't the same as knowing he will misuse his faculties.




“weaknesses or sinful tendencies upon which to base a prediction.”, so you follow that statement by making the prediction “Such a creature only exhibits a tendency to do good.”?

My statement predicts nothing in reference to that creature. It merely describes a state of being.


You do not perceive this as “the nullification of free will by allowing himself to know beforehand what was to happen.”?

There was nothing inherently defective in Adam and Eve that would indicate that they would definitely sin. If there was any prediction to be made it would have been on the side of faithfulness based on their perfection.

Then please describe any other situation where you feel “that prophecy fulfilled assures us of God's promises” is not “the nullification of free will by allowing himself to know beforehand what was to happen”, because that one explanation above certainly did not demonstrate your (or Gods) assertions as consistent with each other.

Knowing what humans will choose to do isn't predestination of those humans to do it. Neither would it have been predestination in the case of Adam and Eve. However, knowing that they would have sinned and allowing it anyway would in effect predestine US their offspring to pain and suffering and death. Pain suffering and death were not part of God's plan. So there is no way that he could have known and plowed ahead anyway. The possibility? Yes. The certainty or probability? No!



So how is that choice a “sin” or “original sin”, and after Eden when that choice has passed how are the descendants of man tainted by the “original sin” of a choice they did not make, forcing one to atone for “sins” not of their choosing is not free will but a unilateral condemnation or prejudice requiring some redemption.

Because we inherited their fallen condition. Also, the atonement was via Jesus Ransom Sacrifice. There is NOTHING a sinful human could have done to hasve freed himself from sin and its inevitable consequence.

So now you say that we do not have free will since we cannot choose not to die. How is elimination of “our tendency to do evil to ourselves and others” free will.

How can people who are protected from crime by law enforcement agencies be said to be free? How can rapists, child molesters, murderers be said to be free when the law interferes with their freedom?



You have simply replaced one set of “limitations” with another. It would seem “God is a liberator” much in the same sense that Stalin and Mao Zetung were “liberators” all they liberate you from is freedom.

Limitations are invariably evil.
A law against murder is a limitation.
A law against murder is evil.

The premise is wrong.

There is a big difference between not being “100% free” and just being some pawn in a predetermined prophetically promised outcome.

Humans are never described as pawns. Instead they are promised eternal life in good health either in heaven or on a paradise earth. Furthermore, human governments dictate what we can and cannot do. This is deemed necessary to conserve law and order, prevent anarchy. The abuse of the weak by the strong. There is no difference under God's rule.
So why the complaining?


No, we are not “insisting on anarchy” (please get some new straw) just on the possibility of anarchy, having that possibility does not mean we have to select it. Not being able to select it makes its non-selection meaningless (as far as believing we did not select it) and thus the outcome (anarchy or not anarchy) is predetermined.

Would you request that a human government allow possibility of anarchy and not do all within its power to prevent it? Would you accuse that government of predetermining your life because it makes anarchy impossible by providing laws?

BTW

Strawman arguments are unintentional. Thanx for clarifying.

[kerikiwi]

No, no, no. I was not asking Jerry. I was asking you:
can you
1 Summarise said idiocy.
2 Explain how you see through it.

Please excuse the repetition, but I seem to have missed the answer to my questions..

[Radrook]

Please excuse the repetition, but I seem to have missed the answer to my questions..

.After you summarize the reasons why you consider believing in an ID illogical.

BTW
The one who used the word "idiocy" first was not me. I usually don't resort to using such words because they aren't conducive to calm discussion. So perhaps I fell into the two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy. My mistake. My apologies to those who prefer to believe in abiogenesis as well

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Calvinists have an interesting response to this. Basically concede the point that God is an evil, selfish prick, yet come out with some inane reason of God not being evil he only makes evils (what?! :confused:) and state that this girl is obviously not one of the elect. As she's not one of the elect God chose her to die young and face damnation in hell for his own personal glory.


Strange that someone who studies the book where God reveals himself should walk away saying he doesn't know the mind of God. Sounds like the person is confused about what he read.




God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This would have been a fine explanation for less-learned cultures however it is not for us. As we are able to conceive of explanations for the universe' current state the existance of God being self-evident through his creation is slightly less than self-evident.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

.After you summarize the reasons why you consider believing in an ID illogical.

Perhaps not necessarily illogical, though the burden of proof is still on the one claiming certainty either way, but believing in a specific one is highly illogical and demonstratably such.

[The Man]

It's not blind because there are justifiable reasons for it. Blind faith would require belief despite the absence of any evidence to support it.

Or simply ascribing any evidence as supporting some predetermined conclusion like say the existence of an all powerful omnipotent entity.




Which proves?


Well that “That accusation works for me..”





The conclusion that the universe is the product of an ID is based on inductive reasoning-not blind faith.


As such it’s based simply on an assumption or the premises that there is an all powerful omnipotent entity. Based on that premises and having done design for many years my inductive reasoning would conclude that it is hardly an intelligent design, lack of redundant systems, difficulty in repair and replacement, maximum travel velocity combined with average distances results in virtually no access to the majority of the construct, few hard wired instructions for the most sophisticated autonomous systems currently available resulting in protracted, sometimes unsuccessful and often unreliable programming, not a user friendly operating system, an average environment that is user hazardous, few and often ineffective safety interlocks, insufficient warning systems for hazardous conditions and an inherently unintuitive design.



BTW
Where's the inductive evidence for abiogenesis?

Evidence is not “inductive” but reasoning can be, it can also be deductive.


It might not fit YOUR definition of faith but that's the definition given in the Bible.

Do you mean that’s the definition you interpret as being given in the bible?




That's a misrepresentation. All counter-evidence and alternative conclusions are evaluated. However, if they are glaringly illogical or based on dubious data, or the data really doesn't warrant the conclusions put forth as fact, then they are rejected.

Well then it is your misrepresentation as you asserted


BTW
Christians don't perceive any truly convincing contradictory
evidence. It's all explainable with the parameters of the faith. If it weren't then belief would be impossible due to cognitive
dissonance.


Any evidence can conform to the presumption of an all powerful omnipotent entity

It could be that belief might also be desirable “due to cognitive dissonance”, it might help some to mitigate that uneasy felling they have now to think that everything will be alright “in the end”.



Paul had been a Pharisee.

Ok, well given the belief in resurrection, in a messiah, not taking a literal interpretation of scripture and oral debate by the Pharisees it hardly seems far fetched or a significant shift in faith for Paul to become a Christen it would seem in fact that he was seeking the “evidence” that he found to justify that shift, well plus the fact that before Christ there could be no Christens. Had he been a Sadducee, that shift would have been more significant as the “evidence” would have been in direct opposition to that faith (no afterlife, no messiah and a strict literal adherence to the Hebrew bible) as opposed to almost in line with it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee


Some have argued that Jesus was himself a Pharisee and that his arguments with Pharisees is a sign of inclusion rather than fundamental conflict (disputation being the dominant narrative mode employed in the Talmud as a search for truth, and not necessarily a sign of opposition).[17]


whereas the Sadducees believed that people have total free will and the Essenes believed that all of a person's life is predestined, the Pharisees believed that people have free will but that God also has foreknowledge of human destiny



You certainly seem to be making very Pharisee like assertions.




I have no justifiable reason to doubt Paul's explanation as to why he accepted Christianity.

Spoken to him directly about that, have you? Perhaps you mean that you have no justifiable reason to doubt that what you have read some thousands of years later is actually “Paul's explanation as to why he accepted Christianity”?



Not if it goes contrary to what is written.


Well, it doesn’t.

http://www.bible-history.com/tabernacle/TAB4The_Mercy_Seat.htm


Rom 3:23-26 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
The Greek word for Mercy Seat is 'hilasterion'. It is used here in Romans 3:25 where Paul says (literally) that God presented Christ as a propitiation or 'mercy seat'. This means that Jesus Christ is the mercy seat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propitiation

Propitiation is translated from the Greek hilasterion, meaning "that which expiates or propitiates" or "the gift which procures propitiation". The word is also used in the New Testament for the place of propitiation, the "mercy seat". Hebrews 9:5. There is frequent similar use of hilasterion in the Septuagint, Exodus 25:18 ff. The mercy seat was sprinkled with atoning blood on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:14), representing that the righteous sentence of the Law had been executed, changing a judgment seat into a mercy seat (Hebrews 9:11-15; compare with "throne of grace" in Hebrews 4:14-16; place of communion, Exodus 25:21-22).



What if what is written is contrary to what is written?




Looking forward and seeing what humans choose to do is predetermination? How
so? .

Well it has to do with this complex thing called language, looking forward, seeing and thus being able to determine or make a determination of “what humans choose to do” prior or previous to them choosing to do it is a ‘predetermination’ of what they will choose to do.




But one assumption forces scriptural moral inconsistency while the other doesn't.

So instead it just forces a stated inconsistency that the unpredictable is predictable. Of course I would also gauge “forces scriptural moral inconsistency” as a stated inconsistency in that the bible or scripture is morally inconsistent on its own.




Knowing what a creature is [capable of doing if he chooses to misuse his faculties isn't the same as knowing he will misuse his faculties.

So then free will is predicable to some degree and god is not omnipotent even if only by his own power.




My statement predicts nothing in reference to that creature. It merely describes a state of being.

A state of being, well, predicable in that “Such a creature only exhibits a tendency to do good.” That prediction often being proved wrong does not make it any less of a prediction.



There was nothing inherently defective in Adam and Eve that would indicate that they would definitely sin. If there was any prediction to be made it would have been on the side of faithfulness based on their perfection.

Well that prediction would have been wrong. In design when you deliberately design in a capability to do something that is not in and is in fact against the planed application then that design and the designer are both defective.




Knowing what humans will choose to do isn't predestination of those humans to do it.

There’s that language thing again, knowing a destination will be arrived at, by knowing “what humans will choose”, prior or previous to arriving at that destination or those choices being made is ‘predestination’.


Neither would it have been predestination in the case of Adam and Eve. However, knowing that they would have sinned and allowing it anyway would in effect predestine US their offspring to pain and suffering and death. Pain suffering and death were not part of God's plan. So there is no way that he could have known and plowed ahead anyway. The possibility? Yes. The certainty or probability? No!

So god is as poor of a predictor and planner as he is a designer, why would anyone give credence to a promised plan with such a poor track record?



Because we inherited their fallen condition. Also, the atonement was via Jesus Ransom Sacrifice. There is NOTHING a sinful human could have done to hasve freed himself from sin and its inevitable consequence.


So it is forcing one to atone for “sins” not of their choosing and is not free will but a unilateral condemnation or prejudice requiring some redemption “via Jesus Ransom Sacrifice”.



How can people who are protected from crime by law enforcement agencies be said to be free? How can rapists, child molesters, murderers be said to be free when the law interferes with their freedom?

As people are clearly not protected from such crimes and people continue to commit those crimes these people are apparently more free then you seem to profess.

You have to actually stand up the straw man before you knock it down.




Limitations are invariably evil.
A law against murder is a limitation.
A law against murder is evil.

The premise is wrong.

That is your premises, I never claimed limitations are “invariably evil” just that they are, well, limiting and thus oppose freedom (which I do not claim is invariably good, before you start collecting straw again). However, I would find a person who is free that limits themselves more compelling then a person who has such limitations imposed upon them and would choose to do otherwise without such or even just the perception of such restrictions.


Humans are never described as pawns. Instead they are promised eternal life in good health either in heaven or on a paradise earth.

So they are not pawns simply because they are “promised” a bribe for their complicity? Given the track record of prediction, planning and design I find that “promise” dubious at best and failing or succeeding in its delivery those that acted accordingly based on that promise are in fact pawns.


Furthermore, human governments dictate what we can and cannot do. This is deemed necessary to conserve law and order, prevent anarchy. The abuse of the weak by the strong. There is no difference under God's rule.

Well they try to, but the fact that people still do those things demonstrates that they do not succeed.

So “There is no difference under God's rule” relating to “The abuse of the weak by the strong”?




So why the complaining?

Complaining? Questioning would be more appropriate, but the same requirements apply. Questions that are not asked can not be answered and complaints that are not lodged can not be addressed. Is there some probation against questions or complaints “under God's rule”?



Would you request that a human government allow possibility of anarchy and not do all within its power to prevent it? Would you accuse that government of predetermining your life because it makes anarchy impossible by providing laws?

That one does not even have the tangibility of straw. It is not about preventing anarchy, the argument of preventing “anarchy” has been used by tyrants throughout the ages and anarchy sometimes ensues until a more participatory government is established. It is about allowing participation in government and not just being subjected by it, the redress of grievances, the opposition modification and perhaps overturning of unjust or ineffective laws or governments. Do you really want to turn this into a civics discussion?

BTW
People interested in freedom and participatory governments are going to be the least interested in achieving anarchy or eliminating possibilities, including the possibility of anarchy.




BTW

Strawman arguments are unintentional. Thanx for clarifying.

That statement might have actually had an air of sincerity if your last few questions and arguments were not as full of straw as a Halloween hayride in a carriage made of straw driven by a scarecrow with some extra straw stuffed in your pockets just in case you ran out, but thanks for the sentiment anyway.

[kerikiwi]

.After you summarize the reasons why you consider believing in an ID illogical..

Certainly:
Whence the designer?

Your turn..

[charles brough]

It seems to me that the word "omnipotent" means something to "the faithful" and something else in the science sense. If, as we suppose, all the happens results from cause and effect, then in order to be all knowing and all powerful, a "diety" would have to know exactly where every part of every atom in everything is at every exact moment. Then, this "diety" would be able to trace back and "explain" everything that happened back through infinite time and be able to predict the future of the entire universe forever. That is "omnipotent!"
"He" doesn't seem to be explained that way in the Bible!

[Radrook]

Or simply ascribing any evidence as supporting some predetermined conclusion like say the existence of an all powerful omnipotent entity.

Strawman since I don't ascribe just any evidence to an ID.


Well that “That accusation works for me..”

Which proves?


As such it’s based simply on an assumption or the premises that there is an all powerful omnipotent entity.

Strawman since I clearly said that it isn't simply based on an assumption. As I said, there are justifiable reasons for it

[quote]
Based on that premises and having done design for many years my inductive reasoning would conclude that it is hardly an intelligent design, lack of redundant systems,....

Lack o redundancy proves nothing. The original design would have needed no redundancy because it was designed never to malfunction. Redundancy assumes a possible malfunction of the system itself.

BTW
It can be argued that two of each is evidence of redundancy. You know two kidneys, two eyes, two cerebral hemispheres, two ovaries and testes, two hands, two ears, two adrenal glands, two lungs, multiple salivary glands,


difficulty in repair and replacement,

But you are conveniently and cunningly ignoring the biblical explanation which tells us that those difficulties aren't part of the original design. They surfaced after the user broke the mechanism via misuse.


maximum travel velocity combined with average distances results in virtually no access to the majority of the construct,

Oh. really? For whom? us? For an almighty entity it would be instantaneous access since he isn't fettered by his own laws. Also, your statement I based on the assumption that such a designer would want us to have access to those regions. There are biblical indications that he wants us to take care of business here on earth.


few hard wired instructions for the most sophisticated autonomous systems currently available resulting in protracted, sometimes unsuccessful and often unreliable programming, not a user friendly operating system,


[quote]an average environment that is user hazardous,

Again ignoring the biblical explanation that this is due to mankind's decision to go it alone.


BTW
If we make our homes near rivers that are known to flood, we will eventually be flooded. If in a tornado alley, sooner or later a tornado will appear on the horizon heading our way. If we see the water retreat before a tsunami hits and stay there-ummm we will soon be under water. If we make a city next to a volcano, Mexico City, for example, the volcano might someday erupt and wipe us out. So all these disasters which take human lives take human lives very often because of the earth is irrevocably designed for our discomfort.


few and often ineffective safety interlocks, insufficient warning systems for hazardous conditions and an inherently unintuitive design.

Again ignoring the biblical explanation. You are describing a system never meant to break which was purposefully broken. So your complaining is similar to I taking a sledgehammer to a car engine and then complain about how it functions after I sledgehammer it. It was never meant to be sledgehammered the designer would tell you.


Evidence is not “inductive” but reasoning can be, it can also be deductive.

Strawman since I never said that the evidence itself constitutes inductive reasoning.
Obviously I was referring to evidence derived via inductive reasoning as inductive evidence. Neither is my mentioning only inductively derived evidence indicative of my ignorance of deductive reasoning as you hastily concluded.


Do you mean that's the definition you interpret as being given in the bible?

No I meant exactly what I said.


Well then it is your misrepresentation as you asserted

A very enigmatic reply which only the author knows what is meant.

Any evidence can conform to the presumption of an all powerful omnipotent entity

Such as the evidence you present to deny his existence?



It could be that belief might also be desirable “due to cognitive dissonance”, it might help some to mitigate that uneasy felling they have now to think that everything will be all right “in the end”.

If the feeling is justified there is really no cause for concern. It's only when the mental outlook isn't justified, such as it isn't in reference to abiogenesis, that it needs to be irradicated.

Ok, well given the belief in resurrection, in a messiah, not taking a literal interpretation of scripture and oral debate by the Pharisees it hardly seems far fetched or a significant shift in faith for Paul to become a Christen it would seem

A lot of things can be said to seem a certain way when viewed from an anti-biblical atheist perspective.


--in fact that he was seeking the “evidence” that he found to justify that shift,

What evidence are you claiming that he claimed he found? Seems you are unaware of why he converted.


....well plus the fact that before Christ there could be no Christens. Had he been a Sadducee, that shift would have been more significant as the “evidence” would have been in direct opposition to that faith (no afterlife, no messiah and a strict literal adherence to the Hebrew bible) as opposed to almost in line with it.

Strawman since it isn't the degree of significance of his conversion which is the issue.

BTW

I am rather impressed that a man who had been totally dedicated to persecuting Christians should suddenly make such an unexpected complete turnaround. Such a turnaround that Christians thought he was faking and setting them up to be arrested and so initially refused to come near him.


Some have argued that Jesus was himself a Pharisee and that his arguments with Pharisees is a sign of inclusion rather than fundamental conflict (disputation being the dominant narrative mode employed in the Talmud as a search for truth, and not necessarily a sign of opposition).[17]

Some have vehemently argued that Jesus was an extraterrestrial, a homosexual, a sorcerer, possessed by the devil, a charlatan, never existed, ad infinitum. However, the majority of people choose simply to accept what was clearly straightforwardlyt written in the Gospels.

BTW
You haven't read the Gospels. Otherwise you wouldn't make that statement about Jesus searching for truth among
the Pharisees rather than condemning their modus operandi.




whereas the Sadducees believed that people have total free will and the Essenes believed that all of a person's life is predestined, the Pharisees believed that people have free will but that God also has foreknowledge of human destiny
You certainly seem to be making very Pharisee like assertions.

Again focusing on Paul and deviating from the freewill thread theme.


BTW
The Pharisees were not devoid of all accurate knowledge as you seem to require in order not to suspect that they are the source of Christian beliefs.


Spoken to him directly about that, have you?

Strawman since Christians acquire accurate knowledge from what was revealed to others and written.
Also false premise since it assumes that God must talk to reveal knowledge. Biblically we are told he has communicated via dreams and visions as well. Or made things known via his active force or holy spirit.
So again you are mistaken.


Perhaps you mean that you have no justifiable reason to doubt that what you have read some thousands of years later is actually “Paul's explanation as to why he accepted Christianity”?

Perhaps that's what you prefer that I mean. In any case, I do have plenty of justifiable reasons to doubt the motives of those who go about doubting everything they read in the Bible and constantly seeking ways to denigrate it.

Well, it doesn’t.

That from a person who has just mangled what was written via strawman. Absolutely amazing!




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propitiation
Quote:
Propitiation is translated from the Greek hilasterion, meaning "that which expiates or propitiates" or "the gift which procures propitiation". The word is also used in the New Testament for the place of propitiation, the "mercy seat". Hebrews 9:5. There is frequent similar use of hilasterion in the Septuagint, Exodus 25:18 ff. The mercy seat was sprinkled with atoning blood on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:14), representing that the righteous sentence of the Law had been executed, changing a judgment seat into a mercy seat (Hebrews 9:11-15; compare with "throne of grace" in Hebrews 4:14-16; place of communion, Exodus 25:21-22).

I understand the mercy seat to be the area between the cherubs where the blood of animals was sprinkled.

Since Paul goes on to explain that the high priest represented Jesus and that his blood was offered as a propitiating sacrifice, and that it was sprinkled over the mercy seat, then t is obvious that Jesus himself could not have been that mercy seat and that such an interpretation of the text is suspect.
What if what is written is contrary to what is written?

Perhaps you mean: "What if the personal interpretation of what is written is contrary to what is written?


Well it has to do with this complex thing called language, looking forward, seeing and thus being able to determine or make a determination of “what humans choose to do” prior or previous to them choosing to do it is a ‘predetermination’ of what they will choose to do.

OK. So God knows or predetermines. That still doesn't mean he predestinates. Which is the roundabout way in which people here are using the word "predetermine".


So instead it just forces a stated inconsistency that the unpredictable is predictable. Of course I would also gauge “forces scriptural moral inconsistency” as a stated inconsistency in that the bible or scripture is morally inconsistent on its own.

Perhaps you mean that YOU find scripture morally inconsistent on its own?


So then free will is predicable to some degree and God is not omnipotent even if only by his own power.

Omnipotence remains undisturbed by his other faculties of infinite wisdom, love, and justice. This other three qualities merely set parameters to the manner in which omnipotence can be applied. Nothing unusual since all of us have parameters which determine how we will use our powers.



A state of being, well, predicable in that “Such a creature only exhibits a tendency to do good.” That prediction often being proved wrong does not make it any less of a prediction.

Adam's choice did not prove he lacked a strong tendency to do good. It only proves that he had made a wrong choice despite that tendency. In other words, he had chosen to ignore that tendency and make a willful decision against it.




Well that prediction would have been wrong. In design when you deliberately design in a capability to do something that is not in and is in fact against the planed application then that design and the designer are both defective.[/qoute]

You design a car to function properly, I ruin it, and you get the blame?


[quote]There’s that language thing again, knowing a destination will be arrived at, by knowing “what humans will choose”, prior or previous to arriving at that destination or those choices being made is ‘predestination’.



So God is as poor of a predictor and planner as he is a designer, why would anyone give credence to a promised plan with such a poor track record?

You are confusing the breaker of the machine with its designer.


So it is forcing one to atone for “sins” not of their choosing and is not free will but a unilateral condemnation or prejudice requiring some redemption “via Jesus Ransom Sacrifice”.

We can't atone for our own sins. He has done it for us as a free gift. He knows it's not of our own choosing. That's why he extends a helping hand. Would you prefer he didn't?



How can people who are protected from crime by law enforcement agencies be said to be free? How can rapists, child molesters, murderers be said to be free when the law interferes with their freedom?

So you are in favor of anarchy? Please understand that I know you can't be. However, your argument leaves room for no other choice.


As people are clearly not protected from such crimes and people continue to commit those crimes these people are apparently more free then you seem to profess.

I profess that they aren't as free as you say? Where?


You have to actually stand up the straw man before you knock it down.

Perceived.

That is your premises, I never claimed limitations are “invariably evil” just that they are, well, limiting and thus oppose freedom (which I do not claim is invariably good, before you start collecting straw again).

Actually no. What you are doing is making statements which are tantamount to premises. Then basing conclusions
on or making generalization based on such statements. The you proceed to deny that you've made a generalization.
I'm not saying you are doing this on purpose. But you are repeatedly doing it nevertheless.

However, I would find a person who is free [but who] limits [himself] more compelling then [one]who has []
limitations imposed upon [him].

Compelling in what way?


[quote]....and would choose to do otherwise without such or even just the perception of such restrictions.

So you don't admire law-abiding citizens even though the laws they might be abiding by might be for the smooth function and survival of society? Strange!


So they are not pawns simply because they are “promised” a bribe for their complicity?

They are not pawns because they don't meet the criteria for being pawns.

BTW
What you describe as a bribe is biblically described as an undeserved free gift.


Given the track record of prediction, planning and design I find that “promise” dubious at best and failing or succeeding in its delivery those that acted accordingly based on that promise are in fact pawns.

But being a pawn requires lack of freedom of choice. Something you have as yet to prove.

Well they try to, but the fact that people still do those things demonstrates that they do not succeed.

Strawman since I never claimed that they succeed.

So “There is no difference under God's rule” relating to “The abuse of the weak by the strong”?

Strawman since I never claimed there is no difference under God's rule.


Complaining? Questioning would be more appropriate, but the same requirements apply.

What requirements?


Questions that are not asked can not be answered and complaints that are not lodged can not be addressed.

True. But questioning and complaining need not be mutually exclusive. They often merge and serve double function.

Is there some probation against questions or complaints “under God's rule”?

Nope. Never said there was.


That one does not even have the tangibility of straw. It is not about preventing anarchy, the argument of preventing “anarchy” has been used by tyrants throughout the ages and anarchy sometimes ensues until a more participatory government is established.

You keep harping on supposed strawmen arguments but aren't averse at posting them yourself. Typically human.


It is about allowing participation in government and not just being subjected by it, the redress of grievances, the opposition modification and perhaps overturning of unjust or ineffective laws or governments. Do you really want to turn this into a civics discussion?

Glad you brought that up. Biblically we are told that God does choose representatives from among mankind to help govern both earth and the universe. Want the scriptures?

Do you really want to turn this into a civics discussion?
Why not? I'd be delighted.


BTW
People interested in freedom and participatory governments are going to be the least interested in achieving anarchy or eliminating possibilities, including the possibility of anarchy.

So from your standpoint there are actually people out there who are trying to achieve anarchy for anarchy's sake? Please provide one historical figure whose goal was anarchy. Not anarchy as a byproduct of efforts to achieve another political goal, but for anarchy's sake alone.


That statement might have actually had an air of sincerity if your last few questions and arguments were not as full of straw as a Halloween hayride in a carriage made of straw driven by a scarecrow with some extra straw stuffed in your pockets just in case you ran out, but thanks for the sentiment anyway.

It might come as a total surprise, but I consider your opinion of my sincerity of little importance. As for strawman arguments, physician cure thyself!

BTW
For one who claims to value the complexity of language so much you sure have an annoying penchant for run-on, obscure, fragmented sentences. There's a difference between intelligible complexity and cryptic verbosity. You know?

[calebprime]

The Man: Is there some probation against questions or complaints “under God's rule”?
Radrook: Nope. Never said there was.

but:


Radrook, quoted from post #113:
God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable.


Calebprimovera:
Perhaps there's some slim distinction between "denial" and "complaints" that is important to Radrook...?

[kerikiwi]

Radbrook:
you asked me to summarise the reasons why I find the idea of an intelligent designer illogical, as a precondition of your summarising the idiocy of abiogenesis and explaining how you see through it.

I did.
Your turn...

[The Man]

Strawman since I don't ascribe just any evidence to an ID.


As you said…


BTW
Christians don't perceive any truly convincing contradictory
evidence. It's all explainable with the parameters of the faith. If it weren't then belief would be impossible due to cognitive
dissonance.



If you are such a Christian as you describe then you do ascribe all evidence as “explainable with the parameters of the faith” as you have claimed. If not such a Christian then what do you do with evidence that is not “explainable with the parameters of the faith” or are you suffering from cognitive dissonance?

BTW
There was no bolding in my statement; if you are going to modify a quote by adding bolding for emphasis you should note that modification


Which proves?

Well it did only prove what I said that “that accusation works for me…”

Now it is becoming evidence that you cannot comprehend a simple statement or ask a relevant question about it.


Strawman since I clearly said that it isn't simply based on an assumption. As I said, there are justifiable reasons for it


Well that is how inductive reasoning works, a premise resulting in a conclusion where the validity of the premise does not ensure the validity of the conclusion, thus an assumption and an assumption of validity. As for “justifiable reasons” do you mean justifiable “with the parameters of the faith”?



Lack o redundancy proves nothing. The original design would have needed no redundancy because it was designed never to malfunction. Redundancy assumes a possible malfunction of the system itself.


Well it did malfunction, so it was not designed “never to malfunction”. Designing a system that has the capability to malfunction based on the assumption that it will not malfunction is a bad design. Of course an omnipotent being would have known not only the capabilities of the system but also its eventual failure. Even we non-omnipotent designers devote a considerable amount of the design to reducing the potential for and impact of a failure in the system.


BTW
It can be argued that two of each is evidence of redundancy. You know two kidneys, two eyes, two cerebral hemispheres, two ovaries and testes, two hands, two ears, two adrenal glands, two lungs, multiple salivary glands,


So first you are arguing that redundancy was not required because the system was not designed to fail and now you are arguing that at least some redundancy was designed in. So the system was designed for some failure, but just not the failure that ensued, a considerable lack of foresight in that omnipotent designer.



But you are conveniently and cunningly ignoring the biblical explanation which tells us that those difficulties aren't part of the original design. They surfaced after the user broke the mechanism via misuse.


“Original design”? The design was changed? Who changed it if not the designer?



Oh. really? For whom? us? For an almighty entity it would be instantaneous access since he isn't fettered by his own laws.


So he designed it for his use and made us use it, no wonder it failed, a bad design and an inappropriate application.


Also, your statement I based on the assumption that such a designer would want us to have access to those regions. There are biblical indications that he wants us to take care of business here on earth.

A design that is 99.9999999999999999999999...% unusable by the current users is a bad design.



Again ignoring the biblical explanation that this is due to mankind's decision to go it alone.


A decision made possible only by how we were designed. You are ignoring the “biblical explanation” that we are part of that system and that design.


BTW
If we make our homes near rivers that are known to flood, we will eventually be flooded. If in a tornado alley, sooner or later a tornado will appear on the horizon heading our way. If we see the water retreat before a tsunami hits and stay there-ummm we will soon be under water. If we make a city next to a volcano, Mexico City, for example, the volcano might someday erupt and wipe us out. So all these disasters which take human lives take human lives very often because of the earth is irrevocably designed for our discomfort.

So a design based on sadism is what you call “intelligent”?



Again ignoring the biblical explanation. You are describing a system never meant to break which was purposefully broken. So your complaining is similar to I taking a sledgehammer to a car engine and then complain about how it functions after I sledgehammer it. It was never meant to be sledgehammered the designer would tell you.


You continue to ignore the “biblical explanation” that we are part of that design and that system. So your analogy is actually similar to a car with a built in robotic arm that smashes itself with a sledgehammer. Designers, like myself, will tell you that if you do not what a car that smashes itself with a sledgehammer then do not design it with that self smashing sledgehammer option (the sunroof option is cheaper and more enjoyable).



Strawman since I never said that the evidence itself constitutes inductive reasoning.

No, but you did ask for “inductive evidence”.


Obviously I was referring to evidence derived via inductive reasoning as inductive evidence. Neither is my mentioning only inductively derived evidence indicative of my ignorance of deductive reasoning as you hastily concluded.


Evidence is not derived from inductive reasoning, but conclusions can be. Your claim of a lack of ignorance about reasoning was hastily asserted.


No I meant exactly what I said.


Ok, so is there a glossary of some sort in the bible that I missed where terms are clearly defined?



A very enigmatic reply which only the author knows what is meant.


No not at all, it was immediately followed by a quote of your assertion that it referred to, which is repeated here again as the second quote from you at the top of this post.



Such as the evidence you present to deny his existence?


I have denied no existence and have presented no evidence in support of a denial I did not make.



If the feeling is justified there is really no cause for concern.


Do you mean that uneasy feeling from cognitive dissonance is justified and that it might cause someone to seek comfort in some promised final outcome is no cause for concern?


It's only when the mental outlook isn't justified, such as it isn't in reference to abiogenesis, that it needs to be irradicated.


By “isn’t Justified” do you mean a lack of “inductive evidence”?



A lot of things can be said to seem a certain way when viewed from an anti-biblical atheist perspective.


Well whenever you actually talk to someone with that perspective you can ask them how they view it.


BTW
Again there was no bolding in my statement; if you are going to modify a quote by adding bolding for emphasis you should note that modification



What evidence are you claiming that he claimed he found?

Only the evidence you claimed he claimed he found.

I’ll quote it for you as it appears you have forgotten.


Then we would have to accuse Paul as faithless since he said that God's existence is evident by the things made. That sets up a very untenable situation. Once we condemn Paul as faithless based on that statement, or his other statement where he tells us that prophecy fulfilled assures us of God's promises, another reference to faith being strengthened or established by perceived evidence, then wee would have to say Paul was misguided. Or else call what he wrote non-biblical. Which of course it isn't.

BTW
Paul himself had been converted to Christianity based on what he saw and heard while on his way to persecute Christians.

Peter said his faith was partly based on having seen Jesus's raised from the dead. He speaks to others who also are said to have witnmesses Jesus' ressurection.

1 Peter 1:21
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.



Seems you are unaware of why he converted.


It seems you’re unaware of what you post.


Strawman since it isn't the degree of significance of his conversion which is the issue.

So the “the degree of significance of his conversion” is not an issue related to the reasons for that conversion?


BTW

I am rather impressed that a man who had been totally dedicated to persecuting Christians should suddenly make such an unexpected complete turnaround. Such a turnaround that Christians thought he was faking and setting them up to be arrested and so initially refused to come near him.

Ah, so then “the degree of significance of his conversion” is a relevant issue.



Some have vehemently argued that Jesus was an extraterrestrial, a homosexual, a sorcerer, possessed by the devil, a charlatan, never existed, ad infinitum. However, the majority of people choose simply to accept what was clearly straightforwardlyt written in the Gospels.


Well if those other vehemently argued aspects were as similar to Christen beliefs as the Pharisee’s beliefs were, at that time, I might be inclined agree with them. It may come as a surprise but I do not “simply to accept” anything.


BTW
You haven't read the Gospels. Otherwise you wouldn't make that statement about Jesus searching for truth among
the Pharisees rather than condemning their modus operandi.


BTW
You have not read my post, I did not make that statement it was a quote from a referenced source. Do you have a problem distinguishing between what people write and what they quote in their posts?



Again focusing on Paul and deviating from the freewill thread theme.


Well you brought him into this and that quote from a referenced source was specifically about free will and used to demonstrate the similarities between the Pharisee's perspective of free will and the perspective you assert. Anyway the topic of this thread is “God’s infinite wisdom” not specifically freewill. You do have a problem distinguishing things don’t you.



BTW
The Pharisees were not devoid of all accurate knowledge as you seem to require…


Where did I “seem” to require anyone was “devoid of all accurate knowledge” (whatever that is suppose to mean)?


in order not to suspect that they are the source of Christian beliefs.


“not to suspect”? That whole section of my post was about the similarities between Christian and Pharisees beliefs. Did you miss the last line in that section of my post?


You certainly seem to be making very Pharisee like assertions.



I suspect that you have as much problem following statements people make (other than your own interpretation of statements in the bible) as you do distinguishing them form quoted material.



Strawman since Christians acquire accurate knowledge from what was revealed to others and written.

So Christians do not feel one can “acquire accurate knowledge” by talking to others? You should tell that to the evangelists.


Also false premise since it assumes that God must talk to reveal knowledge. Biblically we are told he has communicated via dreams and visions as well. Or made things known via his active force or holy spirit.
So again you are mistaken.

No, you are mistaken, you were referring to your lack of doubt in the reasons given for Paul’s conversion, so when I asked “Spoken to him directly about that have you?” it was in specific reference to Paul.

This thread is not the bible and simply placing whatever interpretation suits you onto what was written will result in a correction.


Perhaps that's what you prefer that I mean. In any case, I do have plenty of justifiable reasons to doubt the motives of those who go about doubting everything they read in the Bible and constantly seeking ways to denigrate it.

No, I always prefer someone who means what they say.

Doubting what you read regardless of the source is usually a good idea.

Oh, so may ways and so little denigration.



That from a person who has just mangled what was written via strawman. Absolutely amazing!

For a person who cannot distinguish what was written from what was quoted or even follow a simple discussion to claim the mangling is anything but their own is, well, par for the course.




I understand the mercy seat to be the area between the cherubs where the blood of animals was sprinkled.

You mean it is not clearly written? “Absolutely amazing!” However, your stated understanding is correct.


Since Paul goes on to explain that the high priest represented Jesus and that his blood was offered as a propitiating sacrifice, and that it was sprinkled over the mercy seat, then t is obvious that Jesus himself could not have been that mercy seat…


A reference would be appreciated or do you expect people to take your word over the “accurate knowledge” available in the bible.


and that such an interpretation of the text is suspect.


Ah so now the text of the bible is open to interpretation, kind of makes that “accurate knowledge” interpreted knowledge instead.



Perhaps you mean: "What if the personal interpretation of what is written is contrary to what is written?


Well given you more recent assertion of questioning the interpretations of the text in the bible I would now put it as “What if your personal interpretation of what is written is contrary to the interpretations of other Christians as to what is written”?


OK. So God knows or predetermines. That still doesn't mean he predestinates. Which is the roundabout way in which people here are using the word "predetermine".


The two words are synonymous; again it is that language thing. Funny for a person who claims to gain “accurate knowledge” from what is written one would have thought you would understand the relevance of synonyms.



Perhaps you mean that YOU find scripture morally inconsistent on its own?


Hence the use of the word “I” in my statement.



Omnipotence remains undisturbed by his other faculties of infinite wisdom, love, and justice. This other three qualities merely set parameters to the manner in which omnipotence can be applied. Nothing unusual since all of us have parameters which determine how we will use our powers.


Well that belies your previous assertions


Knowing what humans will choose to do isn't predestination of those humans to do it. Neither would it have been predestination in the case of Adam and Eve. However, knowing that they would have sinned and allowing it anyway would in effect predestine US their offspring to pain and suffering and death. Pain suffering and death were not part of God's plan. So there is no way that he could have known and plowed ahead anyway. The possibility? Yes. The certainty or probability? No!


So which is it omnipotent and foreknowledge but “plowed ahead anyway”, for whatever reason, or only limited knowledge in just “The possibility” and not omnipotent?



Adam's choice did not prove he lacked a strong tendency to do good. It only proves that he had made a wrong choice despite that tendency. In other words, he had chosen to ignore that tendency and make a willful decision against it.


It proves that the “tendency” was not strong enough. Failure of elements due to inadequate strength to support foreseeable applied loads is demonstrative proof of a bad design.


You design a car to function properly, I ruin it, and you get the blame?


A car designed with only a “strong tendency” to go straight that is ruined because it failed to go straight, has only the designer to blame.



You are confusing the breaker of the machine with its designer.


You are deliberately trying distance the designer from responsibility for only one element of what was designed, specifically “the breaker of the machine”. Both “the breaker” and “machine” were designed by the same designer specifically to interact, any failure in their interaction is a direct result of the ineptitude of that designer.



We can't atone for our own sins.


Not just our own sins but the “original sin” as well.


He has done it for us as a free gift.


As a “free gift” he should require nothing in return so no one need believe.


He knows it's not of our own choosing.


So he knows it is his own fault.


That's why he extends a helping hand. Would you prefer he didn't?


I would prefer a competent designer, not one who fails at his task then asserts the required corrective action as “free gift” or a “helping hand”.



*
How can people who are protected from crime by law enforcement agencies be said to be free? How can rapists, child molesters, murderers be said to be free when the law interferes with their freedom?



So you are in favor of anarchy? Please understand that I know you can't be. However, your argument leaves room for no other choice.

*proper link reference to imbedded quote added

As you are simply quoting and responding to yourself I guess you should answer your own question.

Again you cannot distinguish what is written from what is quoted.


I profess that they aren't as free as you say? Where?

As again you are exemplifying your inability to follow a simple discussion, let’s review the exchange as imbedded quotes.






How can people who are protected from crime by law enforcement agencies be said to be free? How can rapists, child molesters, murderers be said to be free when the law interferes with their freedom?


As people are clearly not protected from such crimes and people continue to commit those crimes these people are apparently more free then you seem to profess.



I profess that they aren't as free as you say? Where?


As it was you that claimed those limitations on freedom, your question clearly confuses your assertions as mine. Given your inability to gain any applicable knowledge just from a forum discussion by what is written, I seriously doubt your have gained any “accurate knowledge” from anything else you read including the bible.



Perceived.
Acknowledged.



Actually no. What you are doing is making statements which are tantamount to premises. Then basing conclusions
on or making generalization based on such statements. The you proceed to deny that you've made a generalization.
I'm not saying you are doing this on purpose. But you are repeatedly doing it nevertheless.


Actually what you are doing is just attributing any statements to me, ascribing quoted material as my statements, responding to a quote from yourself as if it was me, questioning your own assertions as mine, making your own premise so you can reason some conclusion then not only trying to attribute the premise to me but your reasoning process as well. I do not care if you are doing it on perpose and expecting not to be challenged or doing it unintentionally, it is still indicative of some serious cognitive dissonance, get some help.


[quote]However, I would find a person who is free [but who] limits [himself] more compelling then [one]who has []
limitations imposed upon [him].

Compelling in what way?

So you don't admire law-abiding citizens even though the laws they might be abiding by might be for the smooth function and survival of society? Strange!

I have no idea what this is supposed to be, it seems you were modifying a quote from me and got distracted then did your usual straw man bit. Do you have AADD as well as cognitive dissonance? If that is the case I’ll try to just touch on the more salient point and keep it short after this.


They are not pawns because they don't meet the criteria for being pawns.

BTW
What you describe as a bribe is biblically described as an undeserved free gift.


But being a pawn requires lack of freedom of choice. Something you have as yet to prove.
Look up the word “pawn”.




Strawman since I never claimed that they succeed.
So “human governments dictate what we can and cannot do” but do not succeed and “there is no difference under God's rule”




Strawman since I never claimed there is no difference under God's rule.


So know you what to add compulsive lier to your list of malidies?

Here is the quote.


Humans are never described as pawns. Instead they are promised eternal life in good health either in heaven or on a paradise earth. Furthermore, human governments dictate what we can and cannot do. This is deemed necessary to conserve law and order, prevent anarchy. The abuse of the weak by the strong. There is no difference under God's rule.
So why the complaining?

So why the lying?



What requirements?

The ones you quote and responded to as “true”

True. But questioning and complaining need not be mutually exclusive. They often merge and serve double function.

No one said they were “mutually exclusive”.



Nope. Never said there was.

Well I’ll defer on that one as calebprime put is so succinctly.


The Man: Is there some probation against questions or complaints “under God's rule”?

Radrook: Nope. Never said there was.

but:


Radrook, quoted from post #113:
God considers his creation sufficient evidence of his existence and sees denial as inexcusable.


Calebprimovera:
Perhaps there's some slim distinction between "denial" and "complaints" that is important to Radrook...?



You keep harping on supposed strawmen arguments but aren't averse at posting them yourself. Typically human.

Glad you brought that up. Biblically we are told that God does choose representatives from among mankind to help govern both earth and the universe. Want the scriptures?

Why not? I'd be delighted.


Well then perhaps you should start you own thread, although I cannot promise to participate as you seem to prefer talking to yourself.


So from your standpoint there are actually people out there who are trying to achieve anarchy for anarchy's sake? Please provide one historical figure whose goal was anarchy. Not anarchy as a byproduct of efforts to achieve another political goal, but for anarchy's sake alone.


Try reading what you quoted.


It might come as a total surprise, but I consider your opinion of my sincerity of little importance. As for strawman arguments, physician cure thyself!

No surprise, your usual denial and projection.


BTW
For one who claims to value the complexity of language so much you sure have an annoying penchant for run-on, obscure, fragmented sentences. There's a difference between intelligible complexity and cryptic verbosity. You know?


My English teachers would be so dismayed, but it’s a penchant with panache.

I have certainly never claimed “to value the complexity of language”. For one who claims to find “accurate knowledge” in what was written you seem to reserve those skills for only one particular tome, professing some inaccurate and outright false knowledge from what you (and we) have read on this thread. There is a difference between what was written and what you think you read, but you don’t know that do you?

[Radrook]

snip


snip


snip


snip


Naaaa! snip


yawn snip




snip





snip




snip





Snipity snippety snip!




false analogy snip


yawn snip



snip

snip

snip

snip

snip


drivel snip



blah blah blah yap yapity yap yap yapity snip!



Look up the word “pawn”.

Don't have to. I'm a chess player.


So know you what to add compulsive lier to your list of malidies?

Four misspellings in one sentence!!!! Now that's what I call panache with a flair!

1. now
2. want
3. liar
4. maladies


snip


snip


snip

snip

snip

snip


My English teachers would be so dismayed, but it's a penchant with panache.

It's called mental lethargy.

snip

Sigh! This is the type irate brainless drivel I really am not interested in seeing on my screen. More like the constant nagging of an illogical wife hell-bent on arguing for the sake of arguing without concern for rhyme or reason. Anyway, I think you need someone else to lock horns with. As for me. Bye!

BTW
If you would take the time to at least pass your convoluted run-on sentences through a spell checker it would reduce your tendency to confuse the reader by maybe ten percent. The other ninety percent would be remedied by learning basic grammar. Such as what does and doesn't constitute a sentence and what run on sentences and a sentence fragments are. But that would deprive you of what you conveniently call panache.

[kerikiwi]

I know you're out there Radrook.
Any chance of an answer?
My answer was far from convoluted, so you should be able to grasp it .

[Macoy]

snip
snip
snip
snip
Naaaa! snip
yawn snip
snip
snip
snip
Snipity snippety snip!
false analogy snip
yawn snip
snip
snip
snip
snip
snip
drivel snip
blah blah blah yap yapity yap yap yapity snip!
Don't have to. I'm a chess player.
Four misspellings in one sentence!!!! Now that's what I call panache with a flair!

1. now
2. want
3. liar
4. maladies

snip
snip
snip
snip
snip
snip

It's called mental lethargy.

snip.

Sigh! This is the type irate brainless drivel ...'snip'

Tell me, Radrook. do you believe that the wine created by jesus was incorruptible?

[Breckmin]

Specific suffering. Horrible suffering in this world. I look at it and to be
it clearly echo's "This world needs a Savior!"

How do we ignore this axiom?

Look at what the result of 'evil' and the consequences for disobedience and
law breaking has brought to the entire world....

If you do not start with the right assumptions (assumptions + observation =
conclusion), you will "miss" every valid answer to every single question you
have on origins.

My sadness in observing the posts in this thread is that so many intellectuals
are missing the very basic assumptions from which you can discern absolute
truth. If you do not start with the proper assumptions, how do you ever expect
to process all of these atrocities that occur?
If you don't believe in evil spiritual beings you will at the very least blame God
rather than their choices. If you do not understand how the domino effect of
evil came to exist and all that affects us you will at the very least blame God
rather than understand that God is the Savior from evil.

"The atrocities of the many will be blamed on the innocence of the few, or the One."
~Michael

[kerikiwi]

Specific suffering. Horrible suffering in this world. I look at it and to be
it clearly echo's "This world needs a Savior!"

How do we ignore this axiom?

Look at what the result of 'evil' and the consequences for disobedience and
law breaking has brought to the entire world....

If you do not start with the right assumptions (assumptions + observation =
conclusion), you will "miss" every valid answer to every single question you
have on origins.

My sadness in observing the posts in this thread is that so many intellectuals
are missing the very basic assumptions from which you can discern absolute
truth. If you do not start with the proper assumptions, how do you ever expect
to process all of these atrocities that occur?
If you don't believe in evil spiritual beings you will at the very least blame God
rather than their choices. If you do not understand how the domino effect of
evil came to exist and all that affects us you will at the very least blame God
rather than understand that God is the Savior from evil.


~Michael

I for one am not in the habit of blaming non-existent entities for anything.

[Radrook]

I know you're out there Radrook.
Any chance of an answer?
My answer was far from convoluted, so you should be able to grasp it .

Sorry about the delay. I believe you asked where is the evidence for an ID? Those who believe in an ID perceive organization strongly indicative of a planning mind just as you would see it upon examination of an arrowhead. The difference is that in comparison with an arrowhead the brain is infinitely more indicative of it.

[kerikiwi]

Those who believe in an ID perceive organization strongly indicative of a planning mind just as you would see it upon examination of an arrowhead. The difference is that in comparison with an arrowhead the brain is infinitely more indicative of it.

So, 'those who believe in ID' does or does not include you?

The brain, whether in the head of a mouse or a person, has evolved, along with all the peripheral parts. It is less, not more, indicative than an arrowhead of an intelliegent designer.

Whence the designer?

[six7s]

Whence the designer?The God-Shaped Hole

Whence The God-Shaped Hole?

[kerikiwi]

The God-Shaped Hole

Whence The God-Shaped Hole?

The same place as hobgoblins and unicorns: imagination.

[RandFan]

Oh? Seems to me He created them fallible. On purpose.

Far more amusing that way. Also, far more rewarding when they get it right, as well. ;)

DR:) It's a giant mess.

If "fallible" a constituent of perfection?
Can a perfect being create something "fallible"?

I submit that there are no answers as any attempt to answer only creates contradictions.

[six7s]

The God-Shaped Hole

Whence The God-Shaped Hole?The same place as hobgoblins and unicorns: imagination.How incredibly fantastic! :)

[Breckmin]

Don't have to. I'm a chess player.

My son is playing in a tournament this weekend. Interesting thing about
"pawns," when they reach their destination they PROMOTE and are no
longer pawns.

~Michael

I will always look for an excuse to talk about chess..short of starting a
new thread.

[Foster Zygote]

My sadness in observing the posts in this thread is that so many intellectuals
are missing the very basic assumptions from which you can discern absolute
truth. If you do not start with the proper assumptions, how do you ever expect
to process all of these atrocities that occur?
What assumptions are those? On what empirical evidence are they based?

If you don't believe in evil spiritual beings you will at the very least blame God
rather than their choices.
I don't believe in any gods. Why would I blame them any more than dragons or minotaurs?

[The Man]

Don't have to. I'm a chess player.


Chess and the bible, what a winning combination for “accurate knowlage”.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pawn

1. Chess. one of eight men of one color and of the lowest value, usually moved one square at a time vertically and capturing diagonally.

2. someone who is used or manipulated to further another person's purposes.





Four misspellings in one sentence!!!! Now that's what I call panache with a flair!

1. now
2. want
3. liar
4. maladies.


Wall I newer clamed I, or anithung, was purfact.





It's called mental lethargy.


Oh, you mean like…


However, the majority of people choose simply to accept what was clearly straightforwardlyt written in the Gospels.


A majority that you are more then welcome to.



Sigh! This is the type irate brainless drivel I really am not interested in seeing on my screen. More like the constant nagging of an illogical wife hell-bent on arguing for the sake of arguing without concern for rhyme or reason. Anyway, I think you need someone else to lock horns with. As for me. Bye! .

See ya, wouldn’t what to be ya (or your wife).




BTW
If you would take the time to at least pass your convoluted run-on sentences through a spell checker it would reduce your tendency to confuse the reader by maybe ten percent. The other ninety percent would be remedied by learning basic grammar. Such as what does and doesn't constitute a sentence and what run on sentences and a sentence fragments are. But that would deprive you of what you conveniently call panache.

Ain’t freedom wonderdful.


I must apologize to everyone; I inadvertently copied the wrong link for the majority of the quotes from Radrook in my previous post, sorry all.

[The Man]

:) It's a giant mess.

If "fallible" a constituent of perfection?
Can a perfect being create something "fallible"?

I submit that there are no answers as any attempt to answer only creates contradictions.
Well, I certainly agree with you about it being a giant mess, but I do not think it creates a contradiction in and of itself. A perfect being should be able to create imperfection, but only intentionally. Now that aspect of intention does create a contradiction with statements such as these…


Knowing what humans will choose to do isn't predestination of those humans to do it. Neither would it have been predestination in the case of Adam and Eve. However, knowing that they would have sinned and allowing it anyway would in effect predestine US their offspring to pain and suffering and death. Pain suffering and death were not part of God's plan. So there is no way that he could have known and plowed ahead anyway. The possibility? Yes. The certainty or probability? No!


Omnipotence remains undisturbed by his other faculties of infinite wisdom, love, and justice. This other three qualities merely set parameters to the manner in which omnipotence can be applied. Nothing unusual since all of us have parameters which determine how we will use our powers.

Certainly if unintentional, as Radrook requires, then that would directly contradict the notion of perfection requiring infinite wisdom. If intentional then it conflicts with infinite love and justice, which I guess are considered to be required for that particular notion of perfection. Even as Radrook asserts “This other three qualities merely set parameters to the manner in which omnipotence can be applied” so either one is infinite and not the others or all are not infinite as a result of their interdependency. Either way it results in limitations and thus not applied omnipotence. However, limitations do not necessarily denote imperfection (which of course would depend on what one chooses to define as the requirements of perfection) but the unintentional creation of imperfection or things that “were not part of God's plan” generally does denote imperfection. Unless one is referring to a perfect mistake (everything about the choice is wrong) or to someone as a perfect failure (one who cannot seem to get anything right).

[RandFan]

Well, I certainly agree with you about it being a giant mess, but I do not think it creates a contradiction in and of itself. A perfect being should be able to create imperfection, but only intentionally. Now that aspect of intention does create a contradiction with statements such as these…I think the problem is one of concept. What is perfection? Does it include the ability to be imperfect? The mind boggles. To get from god to mortals is impossible without special pleading (perfection does not obviate the ability to be imperfect). We could debate it for eternity, or at least, half way. :)

I assure you I'm not just being glib. If you want to define perfection as the ability to be imperfect then that's fine by me. When you start with nonsense it doesn't really matter how you dice it. That's not a dig at you BTW. You are doing just fine and I don't have any complaint with your argument other than a perfect being making something imperfect requires special pleading.

Certainly if unintentional, as Radrook requires, then that would directly contradict the notion of perfection requiring infinite wisdom. If intentional then it conflicts with infinite love and justice, which I guess are considered to be required for that particular notion of perfection. Even as Radrook asserts “This other three qualities merely set parameters to the manner in which omnipotence can be applied” so either one is infinite and not the others or all are not infinite as a result of their interdependency. Either way it results in limitations and thus not applied omnipotence. However, limitations do not necessarily denote imperfection (which of course would depend on what one chooses to define as the requirements of perfection) but the unintentional creation of imperfection or things that “were not part of God's plan” generally does denote imperfection. Unless one is referring to a perfect mistake (everything about the choice is wrong) or to someone as a perfect failure (one who cannot seem to get anything right).I've no problem with your train of logic. I'll not comment further as, IMHO, perfection is a non-starter.

[Radrook]

So, 'those who believe in ID' does or does not include you?

It includes me.

The brain, whether in the head of a mouse or a person, has evolved, along with all the peripheral parts.

So you believe and so you say.

It is less, not more, indicative than an arrowhead of an intelliegent designer. Whence the designer?


Then you would have to declare the criterion you used to arrive at the conclusion concerning the arrowhead as having been fallacious reasoning. Otherwise you would have to apply it to other things which meet and even surpass the exigencies of the same criteria. In order to maintain consistency of policy, then, you would be forced to conclude ID. Are you willing to declare the criterion used in reference to the arrowhead as being fallacious reasoning?

[Radrook]

My son is playing in a tournament this weekend.

What has been his highest rating in standard chess?

Interesting thing about" pawns," when they reach their destination they PROMOTE and are no longer pawns.

Similar to the glorification Paul mentions happens after the ressurection.


~Michael
I will always look for an excuse to talk about chess..short of starting a
new thread.

Do you or your son play on the ICC? Internet Chess Club?

BTW
The famous chess player Philidor said that pawns are the soul of chess.

[kerikiwi]

It includes me.



So you believe and so you say.




Then you would have to declare the criterion you used to arrive at the conclusion concerning the arrowhead as having been fallacious reasoning. Otherwise you would have to apply it to other things which meet and even surpass the exigencies of the same criteria. In order to maintain consistency of policy, then, you would be forced to conclude ID. Are you willing to declare the criterion used in reference to the arrowhead as being fallacious reasoning?

If you believe in ID, then whence the designer?

I do not 'believe' evolution. All the evidence supports it. Either species evolved or all existing species sprang into being as they now are.

The arrowhead can be shown to have a maker. That does not force any conclusion of ID.

[Radrook]

The same place as hobgoblins and unicorns: imagination.

Aren't you aware that the latest theories in physics involving parallel dimensions within our universe and perhaps within multiple universes requires that we no longer consider such creatures impossible? Instead the latest theories based on the behavior of subatomic particles postulate them as highly probable.

[Safe-Keeper]

If you believe in ID, then whence the designer?Then: If the planet doesn't fall down because gods stand below it holding it up... what do the Gods stand on?

Now: If everything that exists has to be designed, then who made the designer?

Same soup, different bowl.

Aren't you aware that the latest theories in physics involving parallel dimensions within our universe and perhaps within multiple universes requires that we no longer consider such creatures impossible?Sure, in some hypothetical universe there might exist a unicorn or two, as well as trolls, goblins, angels and the occasional Norse god. Now that we've established this, let's get back to discussing this universe.

[Radrook]

If you believe in ID, then whence the designer?

If you find an artifact on another planet showing unmistakable evidence of ID and can't see the ID itself for reasons beyond your control, does that invalidate your conclusion that the artifact is the product of an ID?

I do not 'believe' evolution. All the evidence supports it.


You believe based on things you have chosen to accept as evidence. Others view the same evidence and aren't convinced.

BTW
Everything explained via the evolution Idea can much better be explained by ID.


Either species evolved or all existing species sprang into being as they now are.

False dilemma. The third choice is that they were designed by an ID.

BTW

Animals change via speciation. So that second option need not apply.



The arrowhead can be shown to have a maker. That does not force any conclusion of ID.

I think you are missing the point. It's the criterion that leads us to conclude that the arrowhead is a poduct of an ID that demands we remain consistent in its application or else fall prey to inconsistency of policy which constitutes fallacious reasoning.

[Safe-Keeper]

If you find an artifact on another planet showing unmistakable evidence of ID and can't see the ID itself for reasons beyond your control, does that invalidate your conclusion that the artifact is the product of an ID?Irrelevant. This discussion isn't about "artifacts showing unmistakable signs of an ID", it's about the Earth and our universe, which clearly came about through natural processes.

I think you are missing the point. It's the criterion that leads us to conclude that the arrowhead is a product of an ID that demands we remain consistent in its application or else fall prey to inconsistency of policy which constitutes fallacious reasoning.This cake was made by mixing various ingredients and baking them in an oven. Therefore, this mountain was also made by mixing various ingredients and baking them in an oven.

I'll go preach these good news to my choir. They will be delighted.

[Macoy]

-snip-
~Michael

Tell me, Mike, do you believe that the wine created by jesus was incorruptible?

[kerikiwi]

If you find an artifact on another planet showing unmistakable evidence of ID and can't see the ID itself for reasons beyond your control, does that invalidate your conclusion that the artifact is the product of an ID.

No. What has that got to do with your belief in ID? If god is necessary to explain things, something is necessary to explain god.

[kerikiwi]

You believe based on things you have chosen to accept as evidence. Others view the same evidence and aren't convinced.

BTW
Everything explained via the evolution Idea can much better be explained by ID.





Of course others can ignore all the evidence in favour of things without evidence.
And no, evolution cannot be explained better by ID.
ID simply adds an unnecessary step which itself requires an extra step which itself requires an extra step.
Evolution by natural selection does nicely on its own.

[kerikiwi]

False dilemma. The third choice is that they were designed by an ID.

BTW

Animals change via speciation. So that second option need not apply.





Not a dilemma, and not false. There are only two possibilities: either extant species arrived by evolution or they sprang into existence as they are now.
I am not sure what you mean by 'animals change via speciation.' That sounds like evolution.

[RandFan]

Everything explained via the evolution Idea can much better be explained by ID.Fail. Little if anything can be explained by ID.


Evolution explains Tiktaalik.
Evolution predicted Tiktaalik.
Evolution explains the difference in chromosomes between humans and other great apes.
Evolution predicted the answer and the evidence (fused chromosome 6).

Researchers are at this very moment using evolution to find cures for disease using evolution.

No one is using ID for anything other than polemics.

Radrook isn't stupid and he knows these facts. Radrook is a liar. He lying for Jesus.

[charles brough]

Look at what the result of 'evil' and the consequences for disobedience and
law breaking has brought to the entire world....

If you do not start with the right assumptions (assumptions + observation =
conclusion), you will "miss" every valid answer to every single question you
have on origins.

My sadness in observing the posts in this thread is that so many intellectuals
are missing the very basic assumptions from which you can discern absolute
truth. If you do not start with the proper assumptions, how do you ever expect
to process all of these atrocities that occur?
If you don't believe in evil spiritual beings you will at the very least blame God
rather than their choices. If you do not understand how the domino effect of
evil came to exist and all that affects us you will at the very least blame God
rather than understand that God is the Savior from evil.

Good presentation of your view. It is about time this thread got into the real issues!

"Evil" is an old religion term that stands only for "the force of Satan" and has no other, no logical or scientific meaning any more than does "sin" and "holy."
As in all nature, there is no "good" and "evil." It is not "bad" for the wolves to kill and eat deer or the spider to eat and kill bugs! When food is scarce, the mother animal will let one offspring die.

We humans are incapable of envisioning good without the presence of a contrast. All is relative. Someone you might think of as "evil" can be a "saint" compared to someone else. It is the same with being good. Also, we have to have tragedy and crime in life in order to appreciate what it means to be honorable, fair and compassionate.

And when people become so "compassionate" that they try to keep everyone from dying, population growth swells and like all biological organisms, there finally comes a population crash. There is a balance in nature and when one is scientific-minded and logical about it, one does not become rigid and upset over it because life is what it is and there is nothing to compare it with. I find that immensly comforting.

And by the way, people are basically moral not because of some "code" but because we are evolved social animals. I feel proud knowing that others who are Free Thinkers like myself do not have to use the some 600 old "do"s and "don'ts" in the Bible in order to be "good."

[The Man]

I think the problem is one of concept. What is perfection? Does it include the ability to be imperfect? The mind boggles. To get from god to mortals is impossible without special pleading (perfection does not obviate the ability to be imperfect). We could debate it for eternity, or at least, half way. :)

Agreed, finding ourselves to be imperfect are we really capable of perfectly defining perfection and I am more then happy to meet you half way.


I assure you I'm not just being glib. If you want to define perfection as the ability to be imperfect then that's fine by me. When you start with nonsense it doesn't really matter how you dice it. That's not a dig at you BTW. You are doing just fine and I don't have any complaint with your argument other than a perfect being making something imperfect requires special pleading.

I appreciate that assurance, but the point wasn’t defining perfection as the ability to be imperfect, it was defining one aspect of perfection as the requirement to accomplish intended goals. If the intention (or requirement) is to create imperfection then doing otherwise or lacking that ability would have been imperfect. The ability to intentionally create imperfection does not denote a being with such ability as being imperfect, but the unintended creation of imperfection would. As you infer we could go around in circles defining aspects and contemplating consequences forever or just meet half way.



I've no problem with your train of logic. I'll not comment further as, IMHO, perfection is a non-starter.

Nor I with yours, we are just starting with different initial premises, one being perfection must create perfection and the other being perfection must apply itself perfectly by meeting the requirements of the intention whatever they might be. As the latter and my starting premise is indeed the specific case of the application of perfection it could still be considered an instance of “special pleading”. So even in our disagreement we agree, as usual.

[The Man]

Radrook isn't stupid and he knows these facts. Radrook is a liar. He lying for Jesus.


The latter assertions have been clearly established, the former I would say is disproved by the latter. It is obvious (as history clearly demonstrates) that for some it does not matter what you do, as long as you do it believing it is for Jesus (or your particular god of choice).

[joobz]

Fail. Little if anything can be explained by ID.


Evolution explains Tiktaalik.
Evolution predicted Tiktaalik.
Evolution explains the difference in chromosomes between humans and other great apes.
Evolution predicted the answer and the evidence (fused chromosome 6).
Researchers are at this very moment using evolution to find cures for disease using evolution.

No one is using ID for anything other than polemics.

Radrook isn't stupid and he knows these facts. Radrook is a liar. He lying for Jesus.


Ahh, but ID does explain things
Goddidit is an explanation. It just isn't a very useful one.

Let's apply the goddidit explanation to developing new cancer treatments...

Now Let's apply the evolutionary explanation to developing new cancer treatments....


FYI: I've just been writing a grant for a new method to treat combat wounds that uses evolutionary principles to supress the emergence of antibiotic strain resistant infections. One could easily argue that future methods in treating infections which does not include some method of dealing with bacterial evolution is irresponsible.

[The Man]

Good presentation of your view. It is about time this thread got into the real issues!

"Evil" is an old religion term that stands only for "the force of Satan" and has no other, no logical or scientific meaning any more than does "sin" and "holy."
As in all nature, there is no "good" and "evil." It is not "bad" for the wolves to kill and eat deer or the spider to eat and kill bugs! When food is scarce, the mother animal will let one offspring die.

We humans are incapable of envisioning good without the presence of a contrast. All is relative. Someone you might think of as "evil" can be a "saint" compared to someone else. It is the same with being good. Also, we have to have tragedy and crime in life in order to appreciate what it means to be honorable, fair and compassionate.

And when people become so "compassionate" that they try to keep everyone from dying, population growth swells and like all biological organisms, there finally comes a population crash. There is a balance in nature and when one is scientific-minded and logical about it, one does not become rigid and upset over it because life is what it is and there is nothing to compare it with. I find that immensly comforting.

And by the way, people are basically moral not because of some "code" but because we are evolved social animals. I feel proud knowing that others who are Free Thinkers like myself do not have to use the some 600 old "do"s and "don'ts" in the Bible in order to be "good."

Indeed, the natural order of things is indifference. Moral applications come into play for social animals, but those applications differ from species to species and certainly in our species from group to group. The assertion that man gained knowledge of good and evil and thus was cast out from Eden, I find as a good analogy for that development of social requirements (the ability or need to make “moral” distinctions) that now separates us from the indifference of nature. In fact, that such knowledge was purported to make Adam and Eve more like god (if I remember correctly) would indicate any infinite wisdom should include those socially moral aspects. The problem comes that there is no absolute morality. Killing for fun or profit is generally frowned upon by most societies where killing for self protection is usually not and killing in the name of ones god has been and is now actively encourage in some societies. Lacking any applicability of absolute morality, one might come to the assertion that any infinite wisdom might lead inexorably to indifference, as all applicable social considerations of morality would be evident leading to no one particular expression of morality. So, can one accommodate the notion of infinite wisdom with the application of some particular form of social morality, or must god in his infinite wisdom be just an asocial animal and indifferent?

[charles brough]

Indeed, the natural order of things is indifference. Moral applications come into play for social animals, but those applications differ from species to species and certainly in our species from group to group. The assertion that man gained knowledge of good and evil and thus was cast out from Eden, I find as a good analogy for that development of social requirements (the ability or need to make “moral” distinctions) that now separates us from the indifference of nature. In fact, that such knowledge was purported to make Adam and Eve more like god (if I remember correctly) would indicate any infinite wisdom should include those socially moral aspects. The problem comes that there is no absolute morality. Killing for fun or profit is generally frowned upon by most societies where killing for self protection is usually not and killing in the name of ones god has been and is now actively encourage in some societies. Lacking any applicability of absolute morality, one might come to the assertion that any infinite wisdom might lead inexorably to indifference, as all applicable social considerations of morality would be evident leading to no one particular expression of morality. So, can one accommodate the notion of infinite wisdom with the application of some particular form of social morality, or must god in his infinite wisdom be just an asocial animal and indifferent?
To whom is nature indifferent? We are all part of nature, being biological organisms. What is "infinite wisdom?" I have never encountered any such thing. We have social instincts; that is the basis for our moral systems. The difference in cultures or religions causes slight differences in how those instincts are conditioned, hence expressed. This is the mechanism. Out of a Biblical, religious context, what you have written makes no sense.

[The Man]

To whom is nature indifferent? We are all part of nature, being biological organisms. What is "infinite wisdom?" I have never encountered any such thing. We have social instincts; that is the basis for our moral systems. The difference in cultures or religions causes slight differences in how those instincts are conditioned, hence expressed. This is the mechanism. Out of a Biblical, religious context, what you have written makes no sense.
Well the topic of this tread is "God's infinite wisdom" so I do not see how it can be discussed outside of at least somewhat of a religious context. I have never encountered "infinite wisdom" either, but that is the topic. As far as whom nature is indifferent to, I have also never encountered anyone who has not suffered on account of nature (in general), our nature (as a species) or their own nature (as an individual). Also I am not aware of anything that will endure forever, everything breaks down as entropy increases, that seems to be the nature of the universe. So as far as I can tell nature is indifferent to everyone and everything. No doubt that we are biological organisms, but for sometime now we have taken a considerable control over that biology. In particular, I benefit from a biological fusion protein or specifically a “Chimeric mutant protein” crated from a novel coding sequence due to a chromosomal translocation. Although this protein and the coding sequence occurred naturally due to a large-scale mutation. Who could say whether that mutation would have been able to survive, the protein would have been available to me or even usable to me without the years of concerted human effort that was involved. Without that protein I would not be able to function as my own nature or biology destroys my joints. With that protein I do function and perhaps pass on my genes and affliction to another generation. Natural selection becomes somewhat of an unnatural selection. My insurance pays the $1500 a month, but others are not so lucky. Adding another selection to the process and another sociological moral ambiguity of our times. Indeed just like the biological aspects we have taken some control of we have also taken control of the development of our social instincts to a even higher degree. So for a considerable time now, how those instincts are conditioned are more due to ourselves (as a species) then any other influence. I hope that puts it into a better context for you, but unfortunately given the topic of the thread I do not think we can eliminate a religious context and still stay on topic.

[Radrook]

No. What has that got to do with your belief in ID?

What does the method you use to determine that an arrowhead had to have an ID have to do with an ID?

If god is necessary to explain things, something is necessary to explain god.

That doesn't justify being illogical or inconsistent in the application of evaluative criteria when examining things in nature apart from the ID.

[Radrook]

Not a dilemma, and not false. There are only two possibilities: either extant species arrived by evolution or they sprang into existence as they are now.

No, you are forgetting the third possibility. That they were created and changed over time witin the parameters set for change. The bibblical kinds can certainly have undergone speciation within the kind.


I am not sure what you mean by 'animals change via speciation.' That sounds like evolution.

It is evolution up to the speciation point.

[Radrook]

Of course others can ignore all the evidence in favour of things without evidence.

But that's not what's being done. What's being done is the rejection of unconvincing data in favor of an explanation which is found to be far more convincing. You don't see gravity's existence being doubted do you? The reason is that its existence has been proven beyond a doubt whereas the abiogenesis idea is simply an idea which can't be demonstrated in a laboratory. It can only be inferred by looking at what already exists and claiming that it came about by a process which is essentially non-demonstrable but which has to be taken on blind faith.


And no, evolution cannot be explained better by ID.
ID simply adds an unnecessary step which itself requires an extra step which itself requires an extra step.

Those extra steps deemed necessary are based on observation of rules limited to this dimension and universe. Also, the claim requires omniscience.

Evolution by natural selection does nicely on its own.

For people who need to believe it.

[Macoy]

But that's not what's being done. What's being done is the rejection of unconvincing data in favor of an explanation which is found to be far more convincing. You don't see gravity's existence being doubted do you? The reason is that its existence has been proven beyond a doubt whereas the abiogenesis idea is simply an idea which can't be demonstrated in a laboratory. It can only be inferred by looking at what already exists and claiming that it came about by a process which is essentially non-demonstrable but which has to be taken on blind faith.
<snip>


Viticulture has been around for years, long before the birth of Christ, as you know, I'm sure.

Viticulture plus fermentation equals alcoholic wine. (Yes? No?)

Do you believe that the 'wine' created by Christ was incorruptible and non-alcoholic?

[kerikiwi]

No, you are forgetting the third possibility. That they were created and changed over time witin the parameters set for change. The bibblical kinds can certainly have undergone speciation within the kind.




It is evolution up to the speciation point.

Change over time is what evolution is. There are only two possibilities: either extant species have always existed as they are now or they evolved from other forms. This says nothing about how life started. Abiogenesis is not evolution.
You seem to be conflating the two, but they are completely separate.
What does 'evolution up to the speciation point' mean?

[Radrook]

Change over time is what evolution is. There are only two possibilities: either extant species have always existed as they are now or they evolved from other forms.

You are ignoring or refusing to acknowledge a third possibility?

BTW
I haven't claimed that animals have always looked as they look today.


This says nothing about how life started. Abiogenesis is not evolution. You seem to be conflating the two, but they are completely separate.

I know the difference between the supposed lifeless chemical processes that are claimed to have taken place to produce life and the gradual changes which life is claimed as having undergone since then.


BTW
The chemical changes leading to the appearance of life can be viewed as a type of evolutionary process. But I have no trouble separating the twain and do not equate one with the other.

What does 'evolution up to the speciation point' mean?

Change up to speciation and not beyond.

[joobz]

Change up to speciation and not beyond.
The problem with this is how do you define speciation?
Is it sexually isolated groups?
Is this sexual isolation based upon genetic incompatibility or self-selection willingness? Or would we consider copulation compatibility (as a result of size) to be enough to define speciation?

What about changes in complete genomes? Are we only interested in the definition of speciation for animals, or will plant speciation be acceptable?
The speciation argument reeks of Loki's wager. Where does the neck end and head begin exactly?

For sake of analysis, we must create an arbitrary line and then see if that lines holds up.

[RandFan]

FYI: I've just been writing a grant for a new method to treat combat wounds that uses evolutionary principles to supress the emergence of antibiotic strain resistant infections. One could easily argue that future methods in treating infections which does not include some method of dealing with bacterial evolution is irresponsible.:) That's so cool. I was part of the 2001 JCCC UCLA grant writing process for cancer research. What a pain in the ass that was.

Keep up the good work and thank goodness we don't throw in the towel because evolution violates some Christian's world view.

[RandFan]

The speciation argument reeks of Loki's wager. Where does the neck end and head begin exactly?

For sake of analysis, we must create an arbitrary line and then see if that lines holds up.When exactly does day become night? When exactly does a child become an adult?

I gave up supporting ID when the hoops I had to jump through to keep my sanity were increasing exponentially.

[kerikiwi]

You are ignoring or refusing to acknowledge a third possibility?

BTW
I haven't claimed that animals have always looked as they look today.




I know the difference between the supposed lifeless chemical processes that are claimed to have taken place to produce life and the gradual changes which life is claimed as having undergone since then.


BTW
The chemical changes leading to the appearance of life can be viewed as a type of evolutionary process. But I have no trouble separating the twain and do not equate one with the other.



Change up to speciation and not beyond.

There is no third possibility: either extant species have always existed as they are now or they evolved from other forms. If you think there is a third possibility you have not explained it very clearly.

Your posts have suggested that you do not accept evolution. What else can be taken from the phrase 'the gradual changes which life is claimed to have undergone'?
That is to imply that animals have not changed over time which means that they have always looked as they do today.

You may know the difference between the origin of life and its subsequent evolution but you did not make that distinction earlier when introducing the origins of life into a discussion about the evidence for evolution.

No the chemical changes leading to the appearance of life cannot be viewed as a type of evolutionary proess. Evolution says nothing of the origin of life. That is not what 'evolution' means.

Animals change up to speciation and not beyond? Please tell me I have misunderstood you!


Edit: I have no idea how that demented smiley got there and no idea how to remove it!

[Radrook]

Well, since I can't seem to write clearly enough for you to understand what I'm saying then I guess this "discussion" is over.

[kerikiwi]

I'm not in the habit of implying.

Perhaps then you could be explicit:
Have animals changed over time or have they always been as they are today?

[Radrook]

Perhaps then you could be explicit:
Have animals changed over time or have they always been as they are today?

Thanx for the invitaion but this discussion will get nowhere. So let's just agree to disagree.

BTW
Your problem seems tro be that you think I'm ignorantly making things up as I go along. I don't do that.

[Radrook]

Chemical evolution: Definition from Answers.com
chemical evolution The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the
www.answers.com/topic/chemical-evolution
More pages from answers.com


Astrobiology: The Living Universe - Chemical Evolution
... that chemical evolution has even led to the synthesis of complex organic? ... which lead to the generation of the chemical materials essential for the ...
library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=origin03
More pages from library.thinkquest.org


Amazon.com: Chemical Evolution: Physics of the Origin and Evolution of ...
Leading researchers in the area of the origin and evolution of life in the ... Science > Evolution > Organic. Science > Nature & Ecology > Natural History ...
www.amazon.com/Chemical-Evolution-Physics-Origin-Life/dp/0792341112
More pages from amazon.com


ch1.2
... of the list of compounds in table 2 leads to two important observations. ... [37] Clearly, organic chemical evolution prior to or on the meteorite parent body ...
history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch1.2.htm
More pages from history.nasa.gov


Chemical Evolution
Chemical Reactions-process of making and breaking chemical bonds leading to ... reactions to form simple organic molecules that are the precursors of the ...
blue.utb.edu/rlnash/Summer2004/NotesSummer2004/Chemical%20Evolution.htm
More pages from blue.utb.edu


enote11.html
eNote#11 - Chemical Evolution on Primitive Earth - Micromolecules (precursors to ... The physical and chemical properties of organic compounds show many similarities ...
www.chem.duke.edu/~bonk/Chem8304/enote1104f.html
More pages from chem.duke.edu


Origins of Life Chemical Evolution
File type:PDF - Download PDF Reader
lead to the generation of the chemical materials. essential for the development of life. ... evolution of organic molecules is a universal ...
library.thinkquest.org/C003763/pdf/origin03.pdf
More pages from library.thinkquest.org


Evolution - Conservapedia
... leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.[16] ... When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened. ...
www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_evolution
More pages from conservapedia.com


Is Evolution a Fact?
... aside the complete failure of chemical evolution and organic evolution scenarios ... two arguments have largely been discarded by leading proponents of evolution. ...
www.genesispark.com/genpark/fact/fact.htm
More pages from genesispark.com


The Origin of Life - Chemical Evolution & Naturalism
1) formation of organic molecules, which combine to make larger biomolecules; ... not mean there is no evidence, or that MN is leading to the wrong conclusion. ...
www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/life-cr.htm
More pages from asa3.org

[kerikiwi]

Thanx for the invitaion but this discussion will get nowhere. So let's just agree to disagree.

BTW
Your problem seems tro be that you think I'm ignorantly making things up as I go along. I don't do that.

We could agree to disagree if it was clear that we were disagreeing.
No, I do not think you are making things up as you go along. I think you have alrready reached certain conclusions and am trying to establish what those conclusions are.
For example:
Have animals changed over time or have they always been as they are today?

That is easily answered without the screeds of web pages you posted.

[GT/CS]

.....Snip
This is why everyone should make a will and explicitly mention whether they want to be cremated or buried ;)

.....Snip.......



Slight derail in the action, but in most US States a cremation authorization must be signed by the next of kin so if you really want to be cremated you'll need to move to Arizona or California (not 100% sure about CA) and sign the cremation authorization before you die, or state in your will that nobody gets squat unless your body is cremated. Money talks.

[charles brough]

Well the topic of this tread is "God's infinite wisdom" so I do not see how it can be discussed outside of at least somewhat of a religious context. I have never encountered "infinite wisdom" either, but that is the topic. As far as whom nature is indifferent to, I have also never encountered anyone who has not suffered on account of nature (in general), our nature (as a species) or their own nature (as an individual). Also I am not aware of anything that will endure forever, everything breaks down as entropy increases, that seems to be the nature of the universe. So as far as I can tell nature is indifferent to everyone and everything. No doubt that we are biological organisms, but for sometime now we have taken a considerable control over that biology. In particular, I benefit from a biological fusion protein or specifically a “Chimeric mutant protein” crated from a novel coding sequence due to a chromosomal translocation. Although this protein and the coding sequence occurred naturally due to a large-scale mutation. Who could say whether that mutation would have been able to survive, the protein would have been available to me or even usable to me without the years of concerted human effort that was involved. Without that protein I would not be able to function as my own nature or biology destroys my joints. With that protein I do function and perhaps pass on my genes and affliction to another generation. Natural selection becomes somewhat of an unnatural selection. My insurance pays the $1500 a month, but others are not so lucky. Adding another selection to the process and another sociological moral ambiguity of our times. Indeed just like the biological aspects we have taken some control of we have also taken control of the development of our social instincts to a even higher degree. So for a considerable time now, how those instincts are conditioned are more due to ourselves (as a species) then any other influence. I hope that puts it into a better context for you, but unfortunately given the topic of the thread I do not think we can eliminate a religious context and still stay on topic.
Good point! How did we end up in such a dumb topic as "God's Infinite Wisdom????

[RandFan]

Good point! How did we end up in such a dumb topic as "God's Infinite Wisdom????When asked how god could allow children to suffer the oft repeated refrain that we cannot know the mind of god. His wisdom is infinite.

Dumb? Yeah but talk to the theists who go out of their way to make excuses for their belief in a being that could allow children to suffer and die.

[RandFan]

BTW: I've never encountered omnipotence or omniscience either. It doesn't stop theists believing in it though.

[charles brough]

When asked how god could allow children to suffer the oft repeated refrain that we cannot know the mind of god. His wisdom is infinite.

Dumb? Yeah but talk to the theists who go out of their way to make excuses for their belief in a being that could allow children to suffer and die.

Then it was to attract the god-fearing so we can perhaps make a dent in their armour of rationalizing. OK, I also stand ready should any show up again. I am not so used to doing that. My posts are in hopes of giving some direction to all of us who are Free Thinkers. I think we need to take over and run things---like we were headed to do during the Age of Enlightenment. We need more than logic and science to do this job. We have to get control of public opinion so effectively that there are no "religious sections" in the newspapers, that churches cannot have signs, advertise, preach on radio or TV, and be screened out of politics.

Time is running out for us. There are some 15,000 nuclear bombs around the world and an airport system that can spread a new plague across the whole world in a matter of a day or so. We are crowded here because no one is in charge. Thus, we are running out of room and resources. We are faced with an approaching biological crash, the other side, the downslide of the Bell curve.

The only way we can do that and eventually push them right into the Hell they create is by adopting a better-than-secular world-view that can be the "wave of the future" for us---and for everyone.

[RandFan]

Then it was to attract the god-fearing so we can perhaps make a dent in their armour of rationalizing. OK, I also stand ready should any show up again. I am not so used to doing that. My posts are in hopes of giving some direction to all of us who are Free Thinkers. I think we need to take over and run things---like we were headed to do during the Age of Enlightenment. We need more than logic and science to do this job. We have to get control of public opinion so effectively that there are no "religious sections" in the newspapers, that churches cannot have signs, advertise, preach on radio or TV, and be screened out of politics.

Time is running out for us. There are some 15,000 nuclear bombs around the world and an airport system that can spread a new plague across the whole world in a matter of a day or so. We are crowded here because no one is in charge. Thus, we are running out of room and resources. We are faced with an approaching biological crash, the other side, the downslide of the Bell curve.

The only way we can do that and eventually push them right into the Hell they create is by adopting a better-than-secular world-view that can be the "wave of the future" for us---and for everyone.I don't share your vision. I like freedom and I think freedom is best achieved when all people are free. Deciding ahead of time what is the correct ideology and outlawing the rest is a bit Orwellian.

The situation is serious but not dire. Appeal to fear isn't the solution, IMO.

Though we are both atheists and seeking many common goals I'm afraid we will likely find ourselves on opposite sides of some important issues. That's cool. Dialog is a good thing. THAT'S why I'm here and that's why I start threads like this one.

Good luck though and I mean that with all sincerity :)

[GT/CS]

Then it was to attract the god-fearing so we can perhaps make a dent in their armour of rationalizing. OK, I also stand ready should any show up again. I am not so used to doing that. My posts are in hopes of giving some direction to all of us who are Free Thinkers. I think we need to take over and run things---like we were headed to do during the Age of Enlightenment. We need more than logic and science to do this job. We have to get control of public opinion so effectively that there are no "religious sections" in the newspapers, that churches cannot have signs, advertise, preach on radio or TV, and be screened out of politics.

Time is running out for us. There are some 15,000 nuclear bombs around the world and an airport system that can spread a new plague across the whole world in a matter of a day or so. We are crowded here because no one is in charge. Thus, we are running out of room and resources. We are faced with an approaching biological crash, the other side, the downslide of the Bell curve.

The only way we can do that and eventually push them right into the Hell they create is by adopting a better-than-secular world-view that can be the "wave of the future" for us---and for everyone.

Bolding Mine.

Ever hear of the NWO?:boxedin:

[charles brough]

Bolding Mine.

Ever hear of the NWO?:boxedin:

I had to look it up in Wikapedia. I found this quote there:

"New World Order conspiracy theory may be presented by any who fear the loss of their ideological freedom and liberties, conservatives and liberals alike."

You might be which, the liberals?


Seems to me that the old religions are not going away by themselves. They need a boost! I think it would be a good thing to conspire to give it to them!:D

[Radrook]

We could agree to disagree if it was clear that we were disagreeing.

You only see two choices. I don't.

No, I do not think you are making things up as you go along.

Didn't you say that abiogenesis as a type evolution was my erroneous idea?


I think you have alrready reached certain conclusions and am trying to establish what those conclusions are. For
example:Have animals changed over time or have they always been as they are today?

What part of my answer is it that confuses you?


That is easily answered without the screeds of web pages you posted.

The web pages are in response to your accusation that viewing abiogenesis as a type of evolution is my idea.

[Radrook]

Then it was to attract the God-fearing so we can perhaps make a dent in their armor of rationalizing.....

Unfortunately, you yourself are sheathed in an armor of irrationality that needs to be breached in order to attain the liberating clarity of thought which you imagine others lack.

My posts are in hopes of giving some direction to all of us who are Free Thinkers.

Then your hopes are ill-founded. Free thinking would allow for the possibility of the very entity which you deny via illogically assuming omniscience-something which even physicists today don't do. So in my view, what you are actually doing is propagating the shackling of minds via encouraging irrationality.

.....I think we need to take over and run things--like we were headed to do during the Age of Enlightenment. We need more than logic and science to do this job. We have to get control of public opinion so effectively that there are no "religious sections" in the newspapers, that churches cannot have signs, advertise, preach on radio or TV, and be screened out of politics. Time is running out for us. There are some 15,000 nuclear bombs around the world and an airport system that can spread a new plague across the whole world in a matter of a day or so. We are crowded here because no one is in charge. Thus, we are running out of room and resources. We are faced with an approaching biological crash, the other side, the downslide of the Bell curve.


You really believe that after all these millennia mankind is now in a morally-superior position than his ancestors? NOTHING indicates that. Mankind substitutes rockets for arrows, swords and clubs and carries around the same morally-corrupt emotional baggage albeit with scientific backing which increases his destructiveness. In short, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that barring some type of non-human intervention we aren't cooked.


The only way we can do that and eventually push them right into the Hell they create is by adopting a better-than-secular world-view that can be the "wave of the future" for us---and for everyone.

That attempt has been biblically foretold.


C

[Belz...]

Aren't you aware that the latest theories in physics involving parallel dimensions within our universe and perhaps within multiple universes requires that we no longer consider such creatures impossible? Instead the latest theories based on the behavior of subatomic particles postulate them as highly probable.

However, since there's no way to actually test for their existence and the more-than-probable fact that none of those hypothetical entities can interract with us, the point is moot. For all intents and purposes they don't exist.

[Belz...]

Everything explained via the evolution Idea can much better be explained by ID.

A funny assertion since I've never seen an IDer explain anything.

[charles brough]

Looks like I set Radrook aflame! I hate quote-n-snipe, quote-n-snipe posts! I like it when someone takes the heart of an issue and makes a good point instead . . .

[kerikiwi]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.
Abiogenesis is to do with the origin of life not its subsequent evolution.
Radrook is confused about my confusion.
I say there are only two possibilities: either extant species have always been as they are now, or they have evolved (or changed or developed) from other forms.
Radrook says there is a third possibility.
I still can't figure out what that is.

[Radrook]

Looks like I set Radrook aflame! I hate quote-n-snipe, quote-n-snipe posts!

Please point to something I snipped from your post.

I like it when someone takes the heart of an issue

The issue is how can you assume omniscience?


....and makes a good point instead . . .

Well, if indeed you can prove you are omniscient, then you have made a good point in support of your claim to know for sure trhere isn't an ID and proven that my point isn't a good one.

[Radrook]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.
Abiogenesis is to do with the origin of life not its subsequent evolution.Radrook is confused about my confusion. I say there are only two possibilities: either extant species have always been as they are now, or they have evolved (or changed or developed) from other forms. Radrook says there is a third possibility. I still can't figure out what that is.

Well, since I'm supposedly confused and my English is unintelligible to you, then there really isn't any sense in any further attempts at communication.

[charles brough]

Please point to something I snipped from your post.
The issue is how can you assume omniscience?

Well, if indeed you can prove you are omniscient, then you have made a good point in support of your claim to know for sure trhere isn't an ID and proven that my point isn't a good one.

by "quote-n-snipe" I mean responding to every point or sentence and making a llot of work for yourself. What is the main thing I wrote that you disagree with? quote it and then give a well-though-out and clear rebuttal if you disagree with it. That is the way I do my posts and will always continue to respond, in turn, that way. Lets ignore the little things. No need to be sensitive about them. :)

[Cactus Wren]

When asked how god could allow children to suffer the oft repeated refrain that we cannot know the mind of god. His wisdom is infinite.

Dumb? Yeah but talk to the theists who go out of their way to make excuses for their belief in a being that could allow children to suffer and die.

Did you ever read Karen, by Marie Killilea? It's her account of the first ten years of her daughter's life: Karen Killilea was born with cerebral palsy in 1940. It's a vivid depiction of dealing with disability in those days, and of being devoutly Catholic in the days before Vatican II.

I think Karen was about seven when she finally put to her mother the question every parent of a disabled child must dread: why me? "Mom Pom, why did God make me a cripple?"

As has been pointed out upthread, the only valid answer to this question is of course "I don't know". But Marie Killilea, for some reason, didn't feel able to say that, and certainly not to say, "I don't think God did it, sweetie: it just happened." Instead, she explained with great care that it was because God loved Karen more than anyone else in the family, and "Suffering is a sign of God's special love". After all, God "loved His Mother" (caps as in original) more than anyone else, and yet she suffered more than anyone else.

Suffering is a sign of God's special love.

And Karen took in this lesson with great attention -- as we learn in the next book, With Love From Karen. Several years later her beloved dog, her constant companion of many years, died -- just at Easter. Karen, then twelve or thirteen, remembered that the Easter before, she'd had a very painful infection in her hand. "Mom Pom, Easter is the time of our Lord's greatest suffering," she reflects. "Isn't He good to let me share His suffering?"

[Radrook]

If suffering and pain and death were good in God's eyes then he wouldn't promise to get rid of them-would he?

Revelation 21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

If death were a normal thing for mankind it wouldn't be called an enemy would it?

1 Corinthians 15:26
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

In short, the explanations you are citing are unscriptural ideas and nothing more.

[RandFan]

Did you ever read Karen, by Marie Killilea? It's her account of the first ten years of her daughter's life: Karen Killilea was born with cerebral palsy in 1940. It's a vivid depiction of dealing with disability in those days, and of being devoutly Catholic in the days before Vatican II. And also before the Catholic church finally admitted that children previously thought to be in limbo were actually in hell suffering eternal torment? Hmmm....

As has been pointed out upthread, the only valid answer to this question is of course "I don't know".I agree.

Suffering is a sign of God's special love. BS. If I punch you in the face is that a sign of my special love for you?

I'm sorry to be crass but I'm not going to let this imaginary character off that easy. Telling someone that they are special because some all powerful being wants them to suffer is without foundation and it is as sick as it is stupid.

The character of god has a thing for torturing children. He drowned children in the flood. He killed the Egyptian children as the last plague. He sat back as Moses ordered the killing of infants. He commanded Saul to tell Samuel to kill man, woman and child.

I'm sorry but I'm damn glad that such a beast does not exist. And pretending that he does and spreading fairy tales isn't the only solution to comforting children. Atheists also have crippled children and they are capable of caring for and providing compassionate care for them and reliving them of their worries and fears. I'm sorry that life isn't www.mylittlepony.com (http://www.mylittlepony.com) or www.carebares.com (http://www.carebares.com). It's harsh at times but lies won't change the truth.

And what of all of those children that were currently believed to be in Limbo who are now in a lake of fire and brimstone for all eternity? What do you say to those parents?

[kurious_kathy]

Well that's a novel argument! Did you actually hear a Christian say this before?

Had one argued this with me, I'd respond by slapping him.

"Man up! It's not real pain. It's only perceived pain!"

Ooooh it seems someone needs to watch their temper. I know it's hard for people to understand why God allows pain and suffering, but he uses it somehow. For me the chronic pain patient he is showing me his grace and mercy even though I struggle with pain daily. For some of you who have never lived with pain you wouldn't understand, but for those who do maybe you can, God uses pain to get us to turn to him. I know when my time comes I'm going toa place with no more pain and no more sorrow, do you?

[joobz]

Ooooh it seems someone needs to watch their temper. I know it's hard for people to understand why God allows pain and suffering, but he uses it somehow. For me the chronic pain patient he is showing me his grace and mercy even though I struggle with pain daily. For some of you who have never lived with pain you wouldn't understand, but for those who do maybe you can, God uses pain to get us to turn to him. I know when my time comes I'm going toa place with no more pain and no more sorrow, do you?
So, by your logic, I should regularly beat my children to show them my grace and mercy? And that by inflicting pain upon them, they would turn to me out of love?

Why would we hold god to a lower standard than what child services hold parents to?

[kurious_kathy]

:) That's so cool. I was part of the 2001 JCCC UCLA grant writing process for cancer research. What a pain in the ass that was.

Keep up the good work and thank goodness we don't throw in the towel because evolution violates some Christian's world view.

Did that grant to the UCLA involve using dead badies for cancer research? Just curious??

P.S. How can anyone say their a Christian and buy the lie of evolution? It is a contradiction for sure! I have switched sides, have you?

[kurious_kathy]

So, by your logic, I should regularly beat my children to show them my grace and mercy? And that by inflicting pain upon them, they would turn to me out of love?

Why would we hold god to a lower standard than what child services hold parents to?

ActuallyI think the problem is what pair of glasses you are using to view this subject. We have to evolve our thinking to a higher place to even try to grasp the holiness of God and try to understand why he has to punish sin. I suffer because I know I am a sinner and the consequences of sin is death. It's the big answer for the question everyone asks, "Why do we die?" The hope of glory is what keeps me going now and that's the promise everyone needs. Jesus promised us new life and no matter what we go through here and now the promise of heaven is real! God is offering every man eternal life through Christ, why would anyone want to miss that boat?

And might I add that it is better to love God than to hate him for punishing evil. All we humans deserve is death but because of his grace and mercy we can love him and find new life. I find peace in knowing God will help me, do you?

[RandFan]

Did that grant to the UCLA involve using dead badies for cancer research? Just curious??No. UCLA will only use live badies for cancer research.

P.S. How can anyone say their a Christian and buy the lie of evolution?Perhaps because it's not a lie and the facts prove that?

It is a contradiction for sure! I have switched sides, have you?I was once an ID proponent but after about a year of intensive study I could not hold that position anymore. The evidence is simply too great. It's kinda like thinking that the Earth is the center of the universe (as the bible says) and then seeing the facts.

[RandFan]

Ooooh it seems someone needs to watch their temper. Yeah, like god. When he get's pissed he kills man, woman, child, infant, animals, everything. You don't want to piss off god.

[Safe-Keeper]

Kurious, if you are indeed suffering from chronic pain, I'm sincerely glad you've found ways to cope.

This, however, has nothing to do with my perception of God.

[joobz]

ActuallyI think the problem is what pair of glasses you are using to view this subject. We have to evolve our thinking to a higher place to even try to grasp the holiness of God and try to understand why he has to punish sin. I suffer because I know I am a sinner and the consequences of sin is death. It's the big answer for the question everyone asks, "Why do we die?" The hope of glory is what keeps me going now and that's the promise everyone needs. Jesus promised us new life and no matter what we go through here and now the promise of heaven is real! God is offering every man eternal life through Christ, why would anyone want to miss that boat?

And might I add that it is better to love God than to hate him for punishing evil. All we humans deserve is death but because of his grace and mercy we can love him and find new life. I find peace in knowing God will help me, do you?So in order to understand god, I must be willing to blame myself for his bad actions?

"Why do you make me hit you???"

[joobz]

Did that grant to the UCLA involve using dead badies for cancer research? Just curious??
did you mean dead babies? Was this somehow a vague question regarding stem cell research?



P.S. How can anyone say their a Christian and buy the lie of evolution? It is a contradiction for sure! I have switched sides, have you?
because it's what the evidence suggests. If you wish to continue to beleive evolution is false, that's fine. My guess is you'll be happy medicine ignored your views, if you ever need to receive antibiotics.

[Safe-Keeper]

P.S. How can anyone say their a Christian and buy the lie of evolution?How can you say you are a Christian and buy the heliocentric theory?

Kathy, a lot of Christians worldwide 'believe in' the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang, a woman's right to have an abortion, and other 'atheist' theories, laws and ideas. If evolution makes you something else than a Christian, then there's a whole lot less than two billion of you in this world.

[Cactus Wren]

BS. If I punch you in the face is that a sign of my special love for you?

I'm sorry to be crass but I'm not going to let this imaginary character off that easy. Telling someone that they are special because some all powerful being wants them to suffer is without foundation and it is as sick as it is stupid.

The word that comes to my mind is "obscene", buthasjusme.

[Belz...]

Suffering is a sign of God's special love.

And Karen took in this lesson with great attention -- as we learn in the next book, With Love From Karen. Several years later her beloved dog, her constant companion of many years, died -- just at Easter. Karen, then twelve or thirteen, remembered that the Easter before, she'd had a very painful infection in her hand. "Mom Pom, Easter is the time of our Lord's greatest suffering," she reflects. "Isn't He good to let me share His suffering?"

Damn I hate that religion. How can anyone try to sell the idea that not only suffering is good, but that more suffering is better ?

[Belz...]

I know it's hard for people to understand why God allows pain and suffering

Indeed. That an "omnibenevolent" god with full knowledge of the future would torture and maim people in order to communicate his love is not only "hard" to understand, it's illogical and perverse.

but he uses it somehow.

In other words you don't understand it, either.

For me the chronic pain patient he is showing me his grace and mercy even though I struggle with pain daily. For some of you who have never lived with pain you wouldn't understand, but for those who do maybe you can, God uses pain to get us to turn to him.

That someone "turns" to god in response to a life of pain is no indication that the pain was caused by god. It doesn't follow. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I suffer because I know I am a sinner and the consequences of sin is death.

Well, that's odd. I suffer but I know I'm not a sinner. Weird, eh ?

God is offering every man eternal life through Christ, why would anyone want to miss that boat?

Because I don't respond well to threats.

[Belz...]

So in order to understand god, I must be willing to blame myself for his bad actions?

"Why do you make me hit you???"

So Christians are like victims of spouse abuse in that they rationalize away god's villainy ?

[joobz]

So Christians are like victims of spouse abuse in that they rationalize away god's villainy ?
That's the only logic I can see.

All of the excuses given towards understanding god's love is exposed as cheap and evil when you put it into a family context. And note, I did not invent this context. God, the Father. Jesus, his son. Mother Mary. Prodigal sons. Christian theology has explicitly used family descriptors to describe and explain our relationship with god.

[Paulhoff]

Did that grant to the UCLA involve using dead badies for cancer research? Just curious??

P.S. How can anyone say their a Christian and buy the lie of evolution? It is a contradiction for sure! I have switched sides, have you?
So, one should buy into a superficial hateful so-called god. After two thousand years have gone by, christians still haven’t gotten themselves a better so-called god. They just keep making up excuses for a primitive so-called one that doesn’t change and mature into the loving so-called god it is suppose to be. No wonder many of them don’t understand evolution, their so-called god never has evolved. Also that little black book hasn’t evolved, it still doesn’t say anything against slavery, so you think christians would at least change that by now, seeing that most societies in the world have abolished it. And that black book also has such a low esteem of women, so it makes one wonder why so many women put up with being treated has less then second class people and have not change it.

Find a much more mature so-called god and get back to us.

Paul

:) :) :)

[charles brough]

ActuallyI think the problem is what pair of glasses you are using to view this subject. We have to evolve our thinking to a higher place to even try to grasp the holiness of God and try to understand why he has to punish sin. I suffer because I know I am a sinner and the consequences of sin is death. It's the big answer for the question everyone asks, "Why do we die?"

I have never asked that question! As Schopenhaur said, "live is postponed death." Every living thing ultimately dies but life goes on. My life will end. That does not bother me because I have done good in the world and can go in peace. I really don't need to think of going to some place where all the food, music, scenery is perfect and I am always surrounded by loved ones. I like to be alone, eat rough food and see slums once in a while! That is what it takes to appreciate the "good" things. I like to experience life as it is. I don't need "rewards in Heaven" to do the moral things nor do I need to fear a Hell. Like you and others, we were all evolved social beings who are innately motivated to do what is right for the "group." All do, but some are far more selfish then others. There is no "evil."

People do need ideals and goals to work for. Your religion provides them for you, but they are now so obsolete that only perhaps one third of Americans and much fewer in the rest of the West actually believe in them literally. We need a much better belief system with greater goals and ideals. We need to expand out into space and colonize it, for one thing. We need to do this because we are crowding our planet and over using up its resources. Foolish mythology about fetuses being babies is a good example of the sort of thing that is holding us back .. ..

[RandFan]

The word that comes to my mind is "obscene", buthasjusme.It is obscene to excuse suffering.

When Dr. Alfred Blaylock was working to cure blue-baby syndrome some religious leaders questioned the propriety of playing god.

How about you? Is it ok to fix what god screws up? Doesn't god want these children to suffer? Isn't that their lot in life?

I appologize CW but it just doesn't wash. If it helps you get through the night thinking that there is a purpose to everything then fine. I'm damn glad there are people like Doctors Without Borders who don't simply shrugh their shoulders and declare that everything happens for a reason so why do anything about it?

[Belz...]

Rand, I'm not sure CWs argument was that this was a good way of thinking.

[JoeyDonuts]

The infinite "wisdom" of this nonexistent Judeo-Christian usurper is infantessimal before the mighty and glorious bunefisimiance of the Donut Goddess.

Reject your wafers and your hymnals! Become cleansed in the 375-degree Peanut Oil Sacrament of Purification! Abandon your puritanical pussyfooting, and lose your inhibitions and your cares in the toroidal bliss that can only be attained through the daily sacrifice of the Donut and its various pastry analogues!

I know the Donut Goddess loves me, for she has allowed me to enjoy the various pastries of her bounty, whether they be glazed, sprinkled, chocolate frosted, donut holes, eclaires, koblihy, or your local area's indigenous pastry treat.

Donutology. Safer and more fun than Christianity. Hell of a lot tastier, too.

[Cactus Wren]

Belz is right. Sorry, RandFan, I didn't make my own opinion clear: I offered the quotes from Killilea as an instance of a mindset that is to me at once horrifying and incomprehensible. I couldn't agree more with you.

[kurious_kathy]

Personally I don't buy that there is an omnipotent god with a plan that includes pain, suffering and death for 9 year olds. If there was he would be one sick bastard. I don't care how many lolipops he has in his waiting room.

Hi RF, I know it's a horribly painful thing when these bad diagnosis come but let's face it, death is a part of life, no one will escape the penalty of sin, no one. Now when it comes to children I agree I do not think children should suffer like this. It is not easy to try to understand why God allows these things but I like to think he is trying to use these painful situations to draw us closer to him. I myself could never get through anything without knowing God was carrying me through it, NOTHING! The whole idea of losing a child is just too painful for words!

[kurious_kathy]

I have never asked that question! As Schopenhaur said, "live is postponed death." Every living thing ultimately dies but life goes on. My life will end. That does not bother me because I have done good in the world and can go in peace. I really don't need to think of going to some place where all the food, music, scenery is perfect and I am always surrounded by loved ones. I like to be alone, eat rough food and see slums once in a while! That is what it takes to appreciate the "good" things. I like to experience life as it is. I don't need "rewards in Heaven" to do the moral things nor do I need to fear a Hell. Like you and others, we were all evolved social beings who are innately motivated to do what is right for the "group." All do, but some are far more selfish then others. There is no "evil."

People do need ideals and goals to work for. Your religion provides them for you, but they are now so obsolete that only perhaps one third of Americans and much fewer in the rest of the West actually believe in them literally. We need a much better belief system with greater goals and ideals. We need to expand out into space and colonize it, for one thing. We need to do this because we are crowding our planet and over using up its resources. Foolish mythology about fetuses being babies is a good example of the sort of thing that is holding us back .. ..
When I chose to turn from my sins and start believing God again by reading his Word, that was the best descision I ever made. I wish I could say it was an easy descision, but it wasn't for me as I did stray very far from God for many many years and it continues to be a challenge to renew my mind through Bible study. I can honestly say just because I know his word is true does not mean I understand his ways, I just know his ways are better than ours. Do you really think men can evolve on their own understanding? Science and intellect may have an important role in our lives but they cannot save us!

[Upchurch]

It is not easy to try to understand why God allows these things but I like to think he is trying to use these painful situations to draw us closer to him.
How is that supposed to work?

Why would you want to be close to someone who could stop horrible things from happening and chooses not to? And you say he is using these horrible things to get you to like him more?

If you met a person who behaved like this, what would you think of them?

[kurious_kathy]

So, one should buy into a superficial hateful so-called god. After two thousand years have gone by, christians still haven’t gotten themselves a better so-called god. They just keep making up excuses for a primitive so-called one that doesn’t change and mature into the loving so-called god it is suppose to be. No wonder many of them don’t understand evolution, their so-called god never has evolved. Also that little black book hasn’t evolved, it still doesn’t say anything against slavery, so you think christians would at least change that by now, seeing that most societies in the world have abolished it. And that black book also has such a low esteem of women, so it makes one wonder why so many women put up with being treated has less then second class people and have not change it.

Find a much more mature so-called god and get back to us.

Paul

:) :) :)
Paul do you not see there is only one true God and he is Holy? It is rather challenging for us to try to understand what holiness means, but I think we should all try to see God right. If you were a Holy being would you tollerate what people do?

[kurious_kathy]

How is that supposed to work?

Why would you want to be close to someone who could stop horrible things from happening and chooses not to? And you say he is using these horrible things to get you to like him more?

If you met a person who behaved like this, what would you think of them?
Did I say like? I think he uses these things to get our attention and make us realize our need for him. I know none of us like pain, it's not natural to. But if God did not allow pain in our lives would we ever be humbled??

[Upchurch]

Did I say like? I think he uses these things to get our attention and make us realize our need for him.
So, he uses other people's pain and suffering to make us think we need him?

Again, if you met a person who behaved like this, what would you think of them?


But if God did not allow pain in our lives would we ever be humbled??
Yes! I've been humbled plenty of times by those who are stronger and smarter than myself. It did not require the pain and suffering of children to it.

[RoboTimbo]

The whole idea of losing a child is just too painful for words!

Why would you not be overjoyed at the suffering and eventual death of a child? God has allowed the child to be humbled and then to join him. Time for celebration, eh?

Science and intellect may have an important role in our lives but they cannot save us!

Would you withhold medicine from a suffering child?

It is rather challenging for us to try to understand what holiness means, but I think we should all try to see God right.

My take on it is God is an idiot.

Did I say like? I think he uses these things to get our attention and make us realize our need for him. I know none of us like pain, it's not natural to. But if God did not allow pain in our lives would we ever be humbled??

God is a double idiot.

[six7s]

no one will escape the penalty of sin, no one.Please provide evidence of anyone incurring the 'penalty of sin'

Thank you in advance

[Niggle]

Ooooh it seems someone needs to watch their temper. I know it's hard for people to understand why God allows pain and suffering, but he uses it somehow. For me the chronic pain patient he is showing me his grace and mercy even though I struggle with pain daily. For some of you who have never lived with pain you wouldn't understand, but for those who do maybe you can, God uses pain to get us to turn to him. I know when my time comes I'm going toa place with no more pain and no more sorrow, do you?
I am also in chronic pain, and I completely fail to see that as grace and mercy from anyone, especially someone who supposedly loves me. I wouldn't accept that garbage from a mortal. I refuse to accept it from any deity who wants me to love and worship him/her/it. I was raised Catholic, and, yes, I originally accepted my pain as my lot in life due to my sins (whatever those were). Then I got tired of the pain and the depression it caused and the complete lock they had on my life, went to doctors, found out WHY I was in pain, and got treatment for it. I'm still in some pain, but I can function again, and there is now a reason for me to put up with what's left because it doesn't rule my life any more. SCIENCE did that for me. NOT GOD.

I also read about Karen Killilea. My aunt was a social worker and had polio when she was a child. She has a lot of books about crippled children, partly to discover the compensations and treatments that worked for them and partly to study the dynamics of placing them in foster or adoptive homes (many of her books were about abandoned or abused children, whether that abuse caused the crippling or was a result of it). Sick. I read that crap Karen's mother told her and burst into tears. For weeks, I was terrified to go to church, fearing that God would do something equally horrific to me because I loved Him. It took my mother months to work through that with me. Any religion that can cause that kind of terror in a small girl is not worthy of anything but contempt.

In a civilized society, we put people who do such things to others in jail. We don't worship them. Why the hell do we put up with it from a deity?

[Paulhoff]

Paul do you not see there is only one true God and he is Holy? It is rather challenging for us to try to understand what holiness means, but I think we should all try to see God right. If you were a Holy being would you tollerate what people do?
Of course, you just know everything about this so-called god of ours, isn't that just something, it is just like this so-called god just jumped right out of your brain, because kurious_kathy, it did.

Paul

:) :) :)

[kurious_kathy]

Please provide evidence of anyone incurring the 'penalty of sin'

Thank you in advance

Death itself is the proof! People can easily see that and God tells us the why in scripture. It seems prety obvious to me, everyone dies and science doesn't tell us all the whys, scripture answers what science doesn't.

[Paulhoff]

Death itself is the proof! People can easily see that and God tells us the why in scripture. It seems prety obvious to me, everyone dies and science doesn't tell us all the whys, scripture answers what science doesn't.
Oh, please KK, give us the details, I want to be a Brain Surgeon, show me where that is in the bible.

Paul

:) :) :)

The bible is just so deep, NOT.

[kurious_kathy]

I am also in chronic pain, and I completely fail to see that as grace and mercy from anyone, especially someone who supposedly loves me. I wouldn't accept that garbage from a mortal. I refuse to accept it from any deity who wants me to love and worship him/her/it. I was raised Catholic, and, yes, I originally accepted my pain as my lot in life due to my sins (whatever those were). Then I got tired of the pain and the depression it caused and the complete lock they had on my life, went to doctors, found out WHY I was in pain, and got treatment for it. I'm still in some pain, but I can function again, and there is now a reason for me to put up with what's left because it doesn't rule my life any more. SCIENCE did that for me. NOT GOD.

I also read about Karen Killilea. My aunt was a social worker and had polio when she was a child. She has a lot of books about crippled children, partly to discover the compensations and treatments that worked for them and partly to study the dynamics of placing them in foster or adoptive homes (many of her books were about abandoned or abused children, whether that abuse caused the crippling or was a result of it). Sick. I read that crap Karen's mother told her and burst into tears. For weeks, I was terrified to go to church, fearing that God would do something equally horrific to me because I loved Him. It took my mother months to work through that with me. Any religion that can cause that kind of terror in a small girl is not worthy of anything but contempt.

In a civilized society, we put people who do such things to others in jail. We don't worship them. Why the hell do we put up with it from a deity?
Hi Niggle, I hear you very clearly and can relate to this chronic pain issue as I myself am living with it. My disease degerativie disk is not pretty and after two spine surgeries I am living with even more which is tough. God helps me through it and even on my bad days I know he is there. I feel a lot of my struggle is related to my past and the concequences of ungodly living. Now I know Jesus forgives me and will help me endour til my time is done in this world. Do I fear God, yes but it is a good thing to know I will meet him someday and he will not count my sins against me. Do I have consequences of sins yes, but I do not blame that on my creator. He is the one granting grace to redeem us!

[Paulhoff]

So KK, what the hell is your so-called god's job in heaven, no miracles needed there.

Paul

:) :) :)

[kurious_kathy]

Oh, please KK, give us the details, I want to be a Brain Surgeon, show me where that is in the bible.

Paul

:) :) :)

The bible is just so deep, NOT.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[RoboTimbo]

Death itself is the proof! People can easily see that and God tells us the why in scripture. It seems prety obvious to me, everyone dies and science doesn't tell us all the whys, scripture answers what science doesn't.

I don't think that "God works in mysterious ways" is much of an answer. Why do you settle for it?

[MIKILLINI]

Did I say like? I think he uses these things to get our attention and make us realize our need for him. I know none of us like pain, it's not natural to. But if God did not allow pain in our lives would we ever be humbled??

Kathy lets give this a different perspective: Assuming God allows pain and suffering in order for us to be humbled, what then? Do you thank him for the pain and just accept it? If God loves you (Your faith accepts that he does) and you love him (You know that he knows you do), then why would he continue to make you suffer?

If pain is what makes you closer to God, what happens then if it subsides? What if the pain intensifies? Would that mean one is not close enough to God? Doesn't it become a confusing issue when the pain (caused by God) persuaded one to get closer to God and they then pray asking him to remove the pain?

[Paulhoff]

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And who made these so-called wages of sin..........

Paul

:) :) :)

We are not so-called gods, so we didn't..........

[kerikiwi]

Kurious kathy


Your ideas are so bizarre I find it hard to credit that you can really believe them.
You have created a deity who punishes everyone because of the bad things done by someone long, long ago.
I am unclear what those bad things are and why I should be punished for them.

If you believe in this deity, why do you think of death as a punishment?

Why does this deity need to hurt us to get our attention? I can get my dogs' attention without hurting them. Why is your deity so incompetent?
Why do you say your deity will not count your sins against you, when you have said he kills us because we have done bad things?

Your thought processes are totally incomprehensible.

[Upchurch]

For the wages of sin is death,
That's odd. Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life and brought sin upon themselves and their descendants (i.e. humanity), right?

So, if "the wages of sin is death", why do animals, plants, and insects die?

[kurious_kathy]

And who made these so-called wages of sin..........

Paul

:) :) :)

We are not so-called gods, so we didn't..........

God is Holy so he does punish sin but he forgives it too. He wants us to be more Godly like him but I have found we cannot do it on our own, we need Jesus in us to share that goodness(righteousness) with us. On my own I am unable to acheive righteousness, it's Christ in me making me more like him. Don't you see none of us are good enough on our own because we sin. Christ is the one changing us once we accept him as our Lord and Saviour. He wants us to be made Holy through Him. If their is anything good in me it's Jesus! I know I can't save myself and I pray you'll be able to know it for yourself. God is Good!!

[six7s]

Death itself is the proof! :boggled: Your argument has the coherence and consistency of bovine diarrhea

People can easily see that and God tells us the why in scripture.:confused: So what? People can easily see that smoking cigarettes is a fun way to spend money


It seems prety obvious to meWith all due respect, what seems pretty obvious to someone who clings to willful ignorance is irrelevant

everyone dies and science doesn't tell us all the whysName one relevant 'why' that science doesn't explain

scripture answers what science doesn't.Maybe... especially if you only ask stupid questions

[six7s]

For the wages of sin is death, but ...
but the hours are good


... the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.You can keep spamming teh interwebs until the cows come home. However, if you want to present a convincing argument in favour of your mythical sky-daddy here, on a critical thinking forum, I suggest you first learn how to think

It's not hard

Good luck

[Hokulele]

God is Holy so he does punish sin but he forgives it too. He wants us to be more Godly like him but I have found we cannot do it on our own, we need Jesus in us to share that goodness(righteousness) with us. On my own I am unable to acheive righteousness, it's Christ in me making me more like him. Don't you see none of us are good enough on our own because we sin. Christ is the one changing us once we accept him as our Lord and Saviour. He wants us to be made Holy through Him. If their is anything good in me it's Jesus! I know I can't save myself and I pray you'll be able to know it for yourself. God is Good!!


Self-hatred is so disturbing.

[kerikiwi]

Don't you see none of us are good enough on our own because we sin.

Yes, I am good enough on my own.
What is sin?

[six7s]

Yes, I am good enough on my own. No batteries required?

;)

What is sin?It seems as though most scholars contend that its something like a cos plus half a pie...

Lettuce Spray!

I guess if you swallow that, you get a free death certificate...

I can hardly wait!

[Malerin]

I don't think that "God works in mysterious ways" is much of an answer. Why do you settle for it?

If God exists, would you really expect to understand its reasoning?

[alfalfafour]

Personally I don't buy that there is an omnipotent god with a plan that includes pain, suffering and death for 9 year olds. If there was he would be one sick bastard. I don't care how many lolipops he has in his waiting room.

Everybody dies. You have no choice. You will pass from this earth. I can can guarantee that one day, your flesh will no longer sustain your spirit. I have reflected on my own mortality, and I see the mortality of all of us at some time in the future.

The bigger question for us might be what happens after death, and I cannot answer that question for you. I am grieving my loved ones who have passed, and I believe that others at this site are grieving those who they loved. If you have not grieved a loved one who has passed, then you might not know how it feels. If you have lost a loved one through an unrequited love, or a divorce process, you know of something similar. You are cut off.


I cannot tell you for sure if god took your loved one to a higher plane. You must make that an article of your own faith. I can only tell you that it is less painful for me to believe that my loved ones are safe, and that they can hear me speak to them in the nether realm. That is all I have to say. Had the situation been more personal with a member of this site, I would offer my deepest and heartfelt condolences to the strong young lady and her family. If you are close to them, please do.

[six7s]

Death itself is the proof! People can easily see that and God tells us the why in scripture. It seems prety obvious to me, everyone dies and science doesn't tell us all the whys, scripture answers what science doesn't.
I don't think that "God works in mysterious ways" is much of an answer. Why do you settle for it?If God exists, would you really expect to understand its reasoning?:confused:

What, if anything, does that have to do with kurios_kathy's (so far) unsubstantiated claim that "scripture answers what science doesn't"

[alfalfafour]

:confused:

What, if anything, does that have to do with kurios_kathy's (so far) unsubstantiated claim that "scripture answers what science doesn't"


Scripture does answer what science doesn't. It answers what happens when you die. Many people believe the answer, but not many wish to consummate the proof.

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody want to go now"

[JoeyDonuts]

God is Holy so he does punish sin but he forgives it too. He wants us to be more Godly like him but I have found we cannot do it on our own, we need Jesus in us to share that goodness(righteousness) with us.

Why do we need Jesus? If God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent as you believe he/she/it is, why does it need to be fractured into three different aspects i.e. the Trinity?

You are aware that the Trinity as doctrine did not exist until the Council of Nicea, right? So either the texts and beliefs in Jesus' time were incorrect or the Council of Nicea and its lasting effect on Roman Catholic doctrine, the Great Schism, and later the King James Version of the Bible are wrong. And that's being completely generous - giving you a 50-50.

Either way, it sandbags the infallibility of the Bible and therefore the text at the very core of your belief system.

Please, don't just blindly quote scripture by way of response to this. Even though that's about what I expect.

[six7s]

Scripture does answer what science doesn't. It answers what happens when you die.With all due respect: Bollocks

Scripture spins a fairy-tale about what happens when a human dies

Many people believe the answerPlease note: as this is a critical thinking forum, arguments ad populum (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/appealtopopularity.html) are unlikely to convince anyone other than the terminally deluded

Unlike the best-selling fantasy compendium known as the scriptures, science is widely respected because it sticks with observable, repeatable, testable reality

[alfalfafour]

With all due respect: Bollocks

Scripture spins a fairy-tale about what happens when a human dies

Please note: as this is a critical thinking forum,

With all due respect, I said that some people believe. I believe that we can think critically enough to believe that some people believe.

[six7s]

With all due respect, I said that some people believe.FAIL

You said:
Scripture does answer what science doesn't. It answers what happens when you die. Many people believe the answer, but not many wish to consummate the proof.

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody want to go now"

:)

I believe that we can think critically enough to believe that some people believe.Good luck with that

[alfalfafour]

FAIL

Ok, how many?

Split hair. The quote was from a song. I should have credited Chesney.

[six7s]

Ok, how many?It doesn't matter how many... when presenting an argument, it's the how and why and what and when and where, etc that matter - not the who

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

[alfalfafour]

It doesn't matter how many... when presenting an argument, it's the how and why that matter - not the who

Ok, fair enough.

How? In a book that is not science.

Why? So people wouldn't be afraid to die, or so they wouldn't grieve the loss of their loved ones.

Can science answer the question at all? Right or wrong?

[six7s]

Can science answer the question at all? Right or wrong?If the question is 'what happens when a human being dies', then it seems that you are displaying woeful ignorance and/or obstinacy

If the question is something else, please (re?)post it