For Riddick and Christian [Archive]

El Greco

23rd February 2004, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Riddick or Christian I have a few questions I'd like you to answer.

May I ? Thank you.

If God is all-powerful, why did he take 6 days to create the universe, resting on the 7th? Why didn't he just snap his proverbial fingers and create everything all at once, and not need rest afterwards? Doesn't sound so all-powerful to me.

Because he wanted to give us the paradigm of 6 working days per week. And we have even improved on it. Hey smart guy, had he created everything at once we would have to work 24/7. Not to mention the fact that there wouldn't even exist the concept of "week" and the Sunday matches.

Why does this wonderful, forgiving God hold Adam's sin over all our heads? Why must we all pay for this by being permanent sinners?

You think you are smart again eh ? If your father dies and he owes 1 million to the bank, who's going to pay it if not his children ?

If God was so pissed, why didn't he just kill Adam and Eve and start over?

Are you saying God should commit murder ? Only Satan does this and he was busy at the time.

Yes, we have free will, but God already knows who will sin, who will accept Him, etc, for all eternity (since he has perfect knowledge of the future). Why then, are we here?

Why do you have an aquarium ?

Why not just send our souls to Heaven or Hell, depending on what he knows we'll do?

He will, my friend. Just be patient. He made a whole universe, isn't he allowed to have some fun with it ?

Where did God come from?

I can't say for sure, but he's certainly a Caucasian, so we can make an educated guess.

How did he get created?

With spontaneous insemination.

Why is it a valid argument to say that He "always existed", but an invalid argument to say the same thing about matter and energy?

Because if you say so he will send you in Hell.

Satisfied ?

Johnny Pneumatic

23rd February 2004, 09:19 AM

The sin is genetically (for lack of a better word? or maybe the entirely appropriate word) handed down.-elliotfc

Why must we pay for it? If your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather murdered someone should you have to rot in prison?
Surely God would be more just than we "sinfull humans".

He didn't just kill Adan and Eve because he doesn't kill immortal beings-elliotfc

Can It make "immortal beings" sterile?

Why do you have an aquarium ?-El Greco

I don't, and I'm not perfect and all knowing.

Johnny Pneumatic

23rd February 2004, 09:59 AM

Why would god send anyone to hell? Based on the belief that god is perfect, then it stands to reason that a perfect being would create only perfection, so I and everyone/thing is perfect and exactly what god wanted. If the perfect being CHOSE to create anything other than perfection - that's It's choice, not my fault.

"God is merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet not create them at all?

Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't It do it Itself?

If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies?

Why did God flood the earth to remove evil? It didn't work! Evil came right back, God should have known that would happen! So why did It bother?

If the garden of Eden was a perfect paradise as xians claim, then why did Eve even want to eat the fruit? Wouldn't a perfect place provide everything a person would want or desire and thus she would want nothing?

Why would an all-powerful god become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that his creation might escape the wrath of himself. Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, come up with something a little more efficient?

Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?

What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that It doesn't know already?

Did Adam have nipples? If so, how did he acquire them? In fact, why would God give man nipples at all? They serve no purpose other than lactation.

How did Adam and Eve know it was wrong to disobey God if they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) yet? You can't blame them if they didn't know.

Why does SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occur? Why would God allow a baby to live for such a short period of time? Why not just let them not be born in the first place?

If Jesus was nailed and died on Friday evening, and walked out of the tomb on Sunday morning, where's the 3rd NIGHT he predicted? Per Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

These will keep you busy.:)

Riddick

23rd February 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
If God is all-powerful, why did he take 6 days to create the universe, resting on the 7th? Why didn't he just snap his proverbial fingers and create everything all at once, and not need rest afterwards? Doesn't sound so all-powerful to me.
He set a ball of hydrogen reacting, that seems pretty powerful. Some guy does all the creating on one day and does nothing for the next five, maybe I call Him lazy. If He'd done it all on one day you'd call Him lazy, so there was no winning for Him really.

It can be seen from the 10 commandments that (Ex 20:8) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." The 10 commandments are part of God's eternal character, therefore, he rested on the 7th day.

Maybe He timed it so He could rest on the 7th day, as is His nature. Maybe God wanted to mull things over, so he took a full six days. Like me, if I can take out the trash tomorrow, I most certainly won't get it done today. Maybe God was not in a hurry. He took his time forming Adam out of clay and then breathing life into him. Maybe he had some meetings in heaven, a busy schedule. Maybe he wanted to stare into the sky for a while, like the Grinch wanted to stare into the abyss for a couple hours.

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Why does this wonderful, forgiving God hold Adam's sin over all our heads?

Actually, we did have a sinful nature "grandfathered in" so to speak. We don't, however, have to bear Adam's sins directly.

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Why must we all pay for this by being permanent sinners? If God was so pissed, why didn't he just kill Adam and Eve and start over?
I think God was more disappointed than pissed. He did get pissed at the serpent/lucifer and made it crawl upon the ground thereafter. Before this, serpents could fly.

It's like your son and daughter each steal a piece of candy from the candy store. Now, are you going to kill both your son and daughter and start over with 2 new babies? Of course not, you'll just forgive this transgression and help them along their way. You'll probably punish them, but you won't kill them by any means.

God loved Adam and Eve. Additionally, God made Adam and Eve in his own image. Maybe God wasn't so eager to kill off his new creation. God has a plan for us to escape sin. It was through the death of His Son, Jesus. Jesus is God who lived on earth in human form. And Jesus was crucified, which he died from. Through Jesus dying, you can be free from sin.

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Yes, we have free will, but God already knows who will sin, who will accept Him, etc, for all eternity (since he has perfect knowledge of the future). Why then, are we here? Why not just send our souls to Heaven or Hell, depending on what he knows we'll do?
That's true, God knows everything. He knows what our future choices will be. He knows the end from the beginning.

We are here because Satan thinks he can recruit followers and overthrow God. Satan is a created being, but he thinks he will be able to take command away from God. And God can't interrupt Satan's work here because Satan will cry "interference" from God and that he never had a chance to work his magic here on earth. Satan doesn't have knowledge of the future. But Satan is determined that he will overthrow his creator. It is the case of the created trying to overthrow the creator. Which is a pretty st00pid notion, but that's what Satan's out to prove. So God has to allow Satan to run his course and do what he can to attract followers here on earth. In the meantime, God has to watch everyone of us suffer, from cancer, dying in car crashes, dying in old age. These are pains that God never intended for us to suffer. God will return one day and will seek out his revenge by destroying all of Satan's followers and lastly, Satan will be put to death. This will be an accounting for Satan and all the damage he caused on earth. Satan will pay for all the pain and suffering he has caused. And God's followers will be rewarded by living in eternity with God, never having to know pain and suffering again.

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Where did God come from? How did he get created? Why is it a valid argument to say that He "always existed", but an invalid argument to say the same thing about matter and energy?
God has always existed. He was not created. God has always been, and will always be. It is a difficult concept to grasp for us with discrete lifetimes. We will each of us die (except for those alive at Christ's return) --- some of us refuse to believe in God. I find that so disappointing.

One day, Christ will return to claim His followers. When Christ returns, He will open all the graves, put back together all those who were creamated. Everyone who ever lived on the planet will be raised back to life to see Christ at His return. This is the part where you don't want to be stuck facing Christ while you're on Satan's side. And those that don't believe in Christ, He will honor their wish and they will burn in the lake of fire, where they will think no more. Satan is gleeful in all those that don't believe in God, because they are all on Satan's side. Satan, the created being, and his followers will be put to death. A final death, where they will live no more.

I don't know as that's an invalid argument about matter and energy. I'm not so sure that is a general assumption. God can create matter and energy out of a vacuum, if he wants. That's part of being God, infinite power.

TruthSeeker

23rd February 2004, 02:00 PM

Riddick,

I would like to make a sincere suggestion to you. In reading many of your responses, I see over and over how limited your concept of god is. You attribute human motives, limitations and intellect to him. I would like to recommend a book to you. It is supposedly a children's book, but don't be fooled. Its title is Mister God, this is Anna (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345441559/qid=1077573684/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3602011-2139953?v=glance&s=books). YOu can probably borrow it at your local library. As Anna might say "your god is too little"

Good luck

TS

Riddick

23rd February 2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I see over and over how limited your concept of god is. You attribute human motives, limitations and intellect to him. YOu can probably borrow it at your local library. As Anna might say "your god is too little"

Good luck

TS
Unfortunately, you have me all wrong. I don't know how you labeled me all that stuff, but whatever. If you want me to read the book, I don't know if I'll get around to ordering it. You see, I'd have to swipe my mom's mastercard and charge the sucker, risking my already precarious situation with her.

God knew Anna was going to make that statement eons before she actually said it.

Acrimonious

23rd February 2004, 02:31 PM

I still don't understand your Christian God. He's forgiving, right? He's benevolent, right?

Hellfire and Brimstone is neither forgiving nor benevolent. Neither is punishing souls for the rest of eternity for mistakes they made in the span of a few short human years.

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

Hypothetically speaking, if you were to ever catch your own children doing something wrong, what would you do?

Temporarily revoke priviledges and try to help them learn why their action was wrong.

OR

Beat them unmercifully every day for the rest of their life.

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

In each of these cases, one punishment is benevolent and forgiving. The other is unfitting, insane, and maniacally cruel.

Riddick

23rd February 2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
I still don't understand your Christian God. He's forgiving, right? He's benevolent, right?

Hellfire and Brimstone is neither forgiving nor benevolent. Neither is punishing souls for the rest of eternity for mistakes they made in the span of a few short human years.
-------------------------------------
Hypothetically speaking, if you were to ever catch your own children doing something wrong, what would you do?

Temporarily revoke priviledges and try to help them learn why their action was wrong.

OR

Beat them unmercifully every day for the rest of their life.

My church believes that hell is the cessation of life by the lake of fire. This means you will not suffer an eternal punishment. Your life will come to an end, and you will exist no more. Definately not a good option considering you could have lived forever with God.

-------------------------------------
Originally posted by Acrimonious
In each of these cases, one punishment is benevolent and forgiving. The other is unfitting, insane, and maniacally cruel. [/B]
Agreed, the other is insane, cruel. That is why my church believes the punishment will not last forver --- it will come to and end where you die and that will be a permanent death. If you choose separation from God, you will die.

TruthSeeker

23rd February 2004, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Riddick

Unfortunately, you have me all wrong. I don't know how you labeled me all that stuff, but whatever. If you want me to read the book, I don't know if I'll get around to ordering it. You see, I'd have to swipe my mom's mastercard and charge the sucker, risking my already precarious situation with her.

God knew Anna was going to make that statement eons before she actually said it.

My impression of you is based on posts where your god is so angry and cruel and violent. Your answers to the questions in this post suggest that god uses the same limited cognitive strategies that humans use. That's a small god. I doubt there is a god, but if there is one he is more than just a human with super powers.

Anyway, read the book or not. It was just a suggestion.

Johnny Pneumatic

23rd February 2004, 02:46 PM

Satan will pay for all the pain and suffering he has caused.-Riddick

God has always known satan would be like that so why
did It create satan? Riddick you have my deepest pitty
I cannot help you leave the 4kyo mythologys of sheep herders
if you don't want to leave your prison. :(

Riddick

23rd February 2004, 04:00 PM

bewareofdogmasWhy would god send anyone to hell? Based on the belief that god is perfect, then it stands to reason that a perfect being would create only perfection, so I and everyone/thing is perfect and exactly what god wanted. If the perfect being CHOSE to create anything other than perfection - that's It's choice, not my fault.
If you want eternal separation from God, he will honor your choice.

God created us in his image. But it's your choice whether you want to follow him or not. He tells you he offers eternal life if you follow him, but leaves the rest up to you. He's not going to make you follow him.

bewareofdogmas"God is merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet not create them at all?

God will honor the sinners wishes. If they want to be apart from God, he will honor that choice. Although, I imagine it isn't what God wants to hear. God wants you to live with him in paradise, but if you want to die, there's not much he can do about it, except honor your wish.

bewareofdogmasWhy does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't It do it Itself?
To help get the word out, the good news, the plan of redemption. Sometimes it does do it, such as the prison inmate who picks up the bible and starts to read, then converts to christianity. The Holy Spirit is also working in such cases.
bewareofdogmas
If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies?
I don't know, it's a mystery. Maybe it's like the heat from a lit candle, except you can't feel the spirit.
bewareofdogmas
Why did God flood the earth to remove evil? It didn't work! Evil came right back, God should have known that would happen! So why did It bother?

The only ones saved from the flood were Noah and his family. The evil were wiped out. It did come back. God did know that would happen --- he has perfect knowledge of the end from the beginning. Why did he bother? I don't know specifically, you can ask him yourself one day if you want. Depending on your circumstances, of course.

bewareofdogmas
If the garden of Eden was a perfect paradise as xians claim, then why did Eve even want to eat the fruit? Wouldn't a perfect place provide everything a person would want or desire and thus she would want nothing?
The serpent convinced her that her eyes would be opened to the knowledge of good and evil, like God. She thought she could be like god having this discernment, so she ate the forbidden fruit. It was the one tree that she was forbidden to eat from.

bewareofdogmas
Did Adam have nipples? If so, how did he acquire them? In fact, why would God give man nipples at all? They serve no purpose other than lactation.

Yes. God created Adam in his image, so apparently God has them too. Personally, I think we'd look a bit weird without them, but thats just me.

bewareofdogmas
How did Adam and Eve know it was wrong to disobey God if they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) yet? You can't blame them if they didn't know.
They were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge. That should be plenty reason not to eat of that tree in particular.

bewareofdogmas
Why would an all-powerful god become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that his creation might escape the wrath of himself. Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, come up with something a little more efficient?
God had to die to save us from all our sins. A being who has always been, and will always be, had to live a human life and die so that he could save us. It sounds perfectly efficient to me, perfect God dying to save us.

bewareofdogmas
Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?

That passage is talking about the fact that God never tires of us, never grows weary of our demands. Geesh, cut the guy some slack and let him rest the 7th day. OK by me.

bewareofdogmasWhat is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that It doesn't know already?
To ask forgiveness of sins. You can talk to him about anything you want. An important exam you're going to have and that you'd like help preparing for it. Talk to him about anything you want. He's all ears. Lastly, God will know if you don't talk to him. And he's likely to remember that.

bewareofdogmasIf Jesus was nailed and died on Friday evening, and walked out of the tomb on Sunday morning, where's the 3rd NIGHT he predicted? Per Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
It can be noted that in the Hebrew language, it is not necessarily 3 days of 24 hours each, giving 72 hours.

bewareofdogmasWhy does SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occur? Why would God allow a baby to live for such a short period of time? Why not just let them not be born in the first place?
Some kids die in between their mothers legs, because they get stuck in the birth canal. Same type of deal. Any male and female engaging in unprotected sex can get pregnant --- or at least she can. In a perfect world there would be no SIDS. Our world is not perfect, therefore we have SIDS, cancer, downe's syndrome, etc.

Riddick

23rd February 2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Satan will pay for all the pain and suffering he has caused.-Riddick

God has always known satan would be like that so why
did It create satan? Riddick you have my deepest pitty
I cannot help you leave the 4kyo mythologys of sheep herders
if you don't want to leave your prison. :(
actually, i'm out of prison now. been there done that.

i feel free as a bird now.

satan was the 3rd highest being at one time. back when his name was lucifer. chief of all the angels. chief over all the created beings. so you see, satan was not always evil. after a time, he desired to be as powerful as God. but lucifer, a created being, could never hold that office. God, the creator, will put Satan to death one day with his followers.

hey, at least they weren't lemming herders.

i will live again after my death. for eternity.

you however, most likely will only enjoy this life. i suggest you live it up while you can, this will be the end of your dance. i'd try to live as long as i could, if i were you. milk it for all you're worth.

Johnny Pneumatic

23rd February 2004, 04:16 PM

i suggest you live it up while you can-Riddick

I fully intend to.:)

Science improves with time. Religon improves by dying out.-
Quandong Loonata

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.-Carl Sagan

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.-Isaac Asimov

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.- Carl Sagan

Riddick

23rd February 2004, 04:28 PM

you're quoting Carl Sagan?

Stephen Hawking has toilet paper with Sagans picture on it.

I rest my case.

Johnny Pneumatic

23rd February 2004, 04:38 PM

you're quoting Carl Sagan?-Riddick

You're not perfect either oh holy Riddick.:rolleyes:

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Riddick

23rd February 2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
you're quoting Carl Sagan?-Riddick

You're not perfect either oh holy Riddick.:rolleyes:

Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
i'm far from perfect, that's true. sigh.

in re Ecc 9:5, that is what my church believes...that we are in a "dead sleep" when we die. the reward it's talking about is regarding a current reward --- they receive no more, because they are dead; they are forgotten amoung the living. btw, i am a 7th day adventist.

what happens is christ returns to "wake up" the dead. graves will be opened, creamated bodies will be made new.

John 14:1-3 Jesus promised he would return.
Rev 1:7 When Jesus returns, every eye will see him.
Matt 24:27 His return will be like lightning flashing across the sky
1 Cor 15:51-54 God will clothe His people with immortality

ehbowen

24th February 2004, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
I still don't understand your Christian God. He's forgiving, right? He's benevolent, right?

Hellfire and Brimstone is neither forgiving nor benevolent. Neither is punishing souls for the rest of eternity for mistakes they made in the span of a few short human years.

Hypothetically speaking, if you were to ever catch your own children doing something wrong, what would you do?

Temporarily revoke priviledges and try to help them learn why their action was wrong.

OR

Beat them unmercifully every day for the rest of their life.

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

In each of these cases, one punishment is benevolent and forgiving. The other is unfitting, insane, and maniacally cruel.

You are overlooking a key piece of the puzzle here: Your OWN children. God is benevolent and forgiving to his OWN children--all of them. But we are not all children of God. Ever since that day in the Garden of Eden, when our most remote ancestors chose to obey Satan in preference to God, the entire human race has belonged to Satan.

God has not been satisfied to let that situation be the status quo. He has taken positive action in order to make it possible for those who will accept his lordship and sovereignty to be bought back and to receive adoption as his children. But those who have not made that choice belong to Satan. They end up where he ends up.

geni

24th February 2004, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas

Science improves with time. Religon improves by dying out.-
Quandong Loonata

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.-Carl Sagan

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.-Isaac Asimov

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.- Carl Sagan

ad verecundiam or "Appeal to Authority" - committed when one attempts to support a conclusion by citing some person(s) who already asserts the same conclusion, but who is not qualified to assert that conclusion.

Acrimonious

24th February 2004, 01:22 PM

You are overlooking a key piece of the puzzle here: Your OWN children.

I am overlooking nothing.

God is benevolent and forgiving to his OWN children--all of them. But we are not all children of God. Ever since that day in the Garden of Eden, when our most remote ancestors chose to obey Satan in preference to God, the entire human race has belonged to Satan.

God has not been satisfied to let that situation be the status quo. He has taken positive action in order to make it possible for those who will accept his lordship and sovereignty to be bought back and to receive adoption as his children. But those who have not made that choice belong to Satan. They end up where he ends up.

Woah there, cousin (I can call you cousin, right? Seeing as how we both belong to Satan?) Let me see if I've got your timeline right:

1) God creates children with no knowledge of good and evil.
2) God puts children in a situation where only the knowledge of good (obeying God) and evil (disobeying God) would prevent them from doing evil (disobeying God, eating fruit).
3) God's children predictably fail his little entrapment scheme and eat the fruit.
4) God disowns his children and decides to torture them for eternity for doing wrong.
5) Satan adopts God's children.
6) Thousands of years later, God decides he'd like his kids back. He sends his son (himself) to sacrifice himself to himself, so that he can re-adopt his own ex-children and stop the sufferring he imposes upon them himself.

Questions:

If god is omniscient, why couldn't he forsee his little experiment in Eden was an inevitable failure? I'm not omniscient, and I can see it.

If he could forsee it, why would he punish his own creations with abandonment and eternal torture, for having flaws he specifically created them with?

Why would God need to sacrifice himself to himself to allow himself to re-adopt his children? Isn't he supposed to be omnipotent? Couldn't he just... re-adopt them? Couldn't he just STOP torturing them?

Johnny Pneumatic

24th February 2004, 02:09 PM

my church believes...that we are in a "dead sleep" when we die.-Riddick

Exodus 13:2
Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

So those babys that were sacrificed to god are "dead sleeping" now?

ad verecundiam or "Appeal to Authority" - committed when one attempts to support a conclusion by citing some person(s) who already asserts the same conclusion, but who is not qualified to assert that conclusion.-geni

Is it a L.F. to quote what I think is wise? I don't care if Asimov, Sylvia Brown or I said it.

geni

24th February 2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas

Is it a L.F. to quote what I think is wise? I don't care if Asimov, Sylvia Brown or I said it.

Since you failed to give those statements any support yes it is.

Johnny Pneumatic

24th February 2004, 03:01 PM

Since you failed to give those statements any support yes it is.-geni

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bewareofdogmas

Science improves with time. Religon improves by dying out.-
Quandong Loonata

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.-Carl Sagan

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.-Isaac Asimov

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.- Carl Sagan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote 1: Science does improve with time(i.e. round earth)
2: no evidence of an afterlife
3: opinion
4:behavior studies

geni

24th February 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Quote 1: Science does improve with time(i.e. round earth)

Science does not change. The results change the ideas behind it stay the same (becasue they tend to work)

2: no evidence of an afterlife

Inconclusive would be a better discription (there is a difference between weak^100 and none (otherwise you have to accept a number of creationist argument and I certainly don't want that)

3: opinion

Then why not state it in your words rather than trying to use a name to back it up.

4:behavior studies

Referance (perferbley a relible journal but I preparded to consider and study you produce whatever the source)

Lets have a bit of critical thinking round here.

Johnny Pneumatic

24th February 2004, 06:17 PM

Then why not state it in your words-geni

Well...Asimov summed it up well. I could have "chopped" the
name off the end; would that be ok? Must remember Do Not Quote.

Zero

24th February 2004, 07:49 PM

The whole thing is a silly childish fairy tale for idiots and toddlers...why try to make sense of it?

geni

25th February 2004, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Zero
The whole thing is a silly childish fairy tale for idiots and toddlers...why try to make sense of it?

You think the bible is sutible for toddlers?

Zero

25th February 2004, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by geni

You think the bible is sutible for toddlers? No, but only a toddler's brain is suitable for the Bible. Anyone past the age of 5 who reads this nonsense and believes it is deficient mentally.

geni

25th February 2004, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Zero
No, but only a toddler's brain is suitable for the Bible. Anyone past the age of 5 who reads this nonsense and believes it is deficient mentally.

So over 1/4 of the world is metally deficient? Statisticlaly I find this unlikly. Got any reasurch to back this up?

Zero

25th February 2004, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by geni

So over 1/4 of the world is metally deficient? Statisticlaly I find this unlikly. Got any reasurch to back this up? Have you actually read the crap Christians are supposed to believe?

geni

25th February 2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Have you actually read the crap Christians are supposed to believe?

Yes (I'm currently working my way through the scpetic bible). I suspect that the phrase that you are looking for is double think. In this case it would appear that both sides are doing it (you must know from your every day exeperance that not all christians are metally deficient). Now can you provide ststistic to back up your assuertion or are you going to let it drop your choice.

Zero

25th February 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by geni

Yes (I'm currently working my way through the scpetic bible). I suspect that the phrase that you are looking for is double think. In this case it would appear that both sides are doing it (you must know from your every day exeperance that not all christians are metally deficient). Now can you provide ststistic to back up your assuertion or are you going to let it drop your choice. What do I need a statistic for. I look at what Christians believe, I look at reality, I get a good impression of the wide chasm between them, and make an educated assumption. That assumption is for people to believe things that are obviously made up and false, they must have some sort of mental problem. And, yes, that deficiency extends to nearly every Christian I have met, quite alot of Christians considering where I have lived.

geni

25th February 2004, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Zero
What do I need a statistic for. I look at what Christians believe, I look at reality, I get a good impression of the wide chasm between them, and make an educated assumption. That assumption is for people to believe things that are obviously made up and false, they must have some sort of mental problem. And, yes, that deficiency extends to nearly every Christian I have met, quite alot of Christians considering where I have lived.

Anyone past the age of 5 who reads this nonsense and believes it is deficient mentally.

So you are making this statment of the basis of anidtoal evidence and quetionble leap of logic.

You seem to be thinking the following. People belive in the bible. The bible is illogical by most standards. Thefore anyone who belives it is deficent mentally. Very good you have got as far as step one you have made a prediction based on reasoning. Now back it up with real evidence. Shouldn't be hard to find. A massive IQ differenece between thoes who belive the bible and thoes that do not should be fairly easy to spot.

Or are you claiming that those who belive in the bible are incaperble of logical thinking? that is a very differnt claim. Of course I would also reject that one all though in this case most of my evidence does come from personal experance and so is not very strong. However it should not be to hard for you to show that christians are not caperble of thinking logicaly. A total lack of and cristians in the sciences should be vagly deceterble. I'm sure that you can show that there are no christians who have won the noble prize for example. What you are claiming is pretty easy to verify so where is your data to back it up?

Zero

25th February 2004, 08:00 AM

The problem you are having is that you seem to lump all mental deficiencies together, and someone who displays one should display multiple dificulties. In the same way that being color blind doesn't mean you are actually blind, you can have a mental deficiency without being retarded. ;)

Believing in illogical things is, IMO, a deficiency. It doesn't necesarily have to be debilitating, but it does exist.

geni

25th February 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Believing in illogical things is, IMO, a deficiency. It doesn't necesarily have to be debilitating, but it does exist.

From what I have seen not beliving imn the bible does not stop you beliving in illogical things (unfortunetly).

Zero

25th February 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by geni

From what I have seen not beliving imn the bible does not stop you beliving in illogical things (unfortunetly). So? It falls under the same category, doesn't it?

wollery

25th February 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Riddick
He set a ball of hydrogen reacting, that seems pretty powerful.Actually it's pretty elementary (pun intended), you just take a few solar masses of Hydrogen, add a couple of Jupiter masses of Helium, traces of Lithium and other heavy elements and leave it for a few million years. Presto chango - a star!

Some guy does all the creating on one day and does nothing for the next five, maybe I call Him lazy. If He'd done it all on one day you'd call Him lazy, so there was no winning for Him really.He's God, he's omnipotent, whatever he does is wonderful, surely? Why seven days, why not seven weeks, or seven years, or seven billion years, or seven seconds. What possible difference could it make to an omnipotent being?

It can be seen from the 10 commandments that (Ex 20:8) "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." The 10 commandments are part of God's eternal character, therefore, he rested on the 7th day.

Maybe He timed it so He could rest on the 7th day, as is His nature. Maybe God wanted to mull things over, so he took a full six days. Like me, if I can take out the trash tomorrow, I most certainly won't get it done today. Maybe God was not in a hurry. He took his time forming Adam out of clay and then breathing life into him. Maybe he had some meetings in heaven, a busy schedule. Maybe he wanted to stare into the sky for a while, like the Grinch wanted to stare into the abyss for a couple hours.Way to anthropomorphise an omnipotent being.

Actually, we did have a sinful nature "grandfathered in" so to speak. We don't, however, have to bear Adam's sins directly.

I think God was more disappointed than pissed. He did get pissed at the serpent/lucifer and made it crawl upon the ground thereafter. Before this, serpents could fly.Disappointed? In what? He's omnipresent and omniscient. He knew they were going to do it, and was there watching them all the time they were doing it. Or don't you believe that your God is all knowing and all seeing? This story suggests a very limited deity.

It's like your son and daughter each steal a piece of candy from the candy store. Now, are you going to kill both your son and daughter and start over with 2 new babies? Of course not, you'll just forgive this transgression and help them along their way. You'll probably punish them, but you won't kill them by any means.So instead you punish them by kicking them out on the street to fend for themselves. Oh yeah, you then let their children and grandchildren etc stay out in the street. (?!)

God loved Adam and Eve. Additionally, God made Adam and Eve in his own image. Maybe God wasn't so eager to kill off his new creation. God has a plan for us to escape sin. It was through the death of His Son, Jesus. Jesus is God who lived on earth in human form. And Jesus was crucified, which he died from. Through Jesus dying, you can be free from sin.No, sorry, that just makes no sense at all.

That's true, God knows everything. He knows what our future choices will be. He knows the end from the beginning.Ah, so he did know that Adam and Eve were going to disobey him (see above).

We are here because Satan thinks he can recruit followers and overthrow God. Satan is a created being, but he thinks he will be able to take command away from God. And God can't interrupt Satan's work here because Satan will cry "interference" from God and that he never had a chance to work his magic here on earth. Satan doesn't have knowledge of the future. But Satan is determined that he will overthrow his creator. It is the case of the created trying to overthrow the creator. Which is a pretty st00pid notion, but that's what Satan's out to prove. So God has to allow Satan to run his course and do what he can to attract followers here on earth. So what if Satan cries foul? Who cares? God? Why? Are you suggesting that God cares more about Satans feelings than the eternal souls of millions of humans? If God's the ultimate being, omnipotent and all that mullarkey then he doesn't have to do anything.

In the meantime, God has to watch everyone of us suffer, from cancer, dying in car crashes, dying in old age. These are pains that God never intended for us to suffer. God will return one day and will seek out his revenge by destroying all of Satan's followers and lastly, Satan will be put to death. This will be an accounting for Satan and all the damage he caused on earth. Satan will pay for all the pain and suffering he has caused. And God's followers will be rewarded by living in eternity with God, never having to know pain and suffering again.Something God didn't intend? So he isn't all powerful then?
He'll return? I thought he was omnipresent. If he isn't here then how does he hear peoples prayers?

God has always existed. He was not created. God has always been, and will always be. It is a difficult concept to grasp for us with discrete lifetimes. We will each of us die (except for those alive at Christ's return) --- some of us refuse to believe in God. I find that so disappointing.What I find disappointing is the way you make all these assertions and completely fail to see the logical fallacies.

One day, Christ will return to claim His followers. When Christ returns, He will open all the graves, put back together all those who were creamated. Everyone who ever lived on the planet will be raised back to life to see Christ at His return. This is the part where you don't want to be stuck facing Christ while you're on Satan's side. And those that don't believe in Christ, He will honor their wish and they will burn in the lake of fire, where they will think no more. Satan is gleeful in all those that don't believe in God, because they are all on Satan's side. Satan, the created being, and his followers will be put to death. A final death, where they will live no more.No, still don't get it. God is supposed to love humanity, and knows way in advance (you said so yourself above) what's going to happen. He knew when he created Satan how that was going to turn out. Didn't stop him though, thus condemning millions (billions even) of souls to fail to be able to live in paradise. Why leave it so long? Why do it in the first place?

On the one hand you say that God is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, ever present and loves us. Then you say that he can't interfere with Satan, didn't realise Satan was going to tempt Eve, or that she and Adam were going to fall for that temptation, has plans for us (suggesting uncertainty), is going to return someday (which I guess means that he's left us all alone for the time being) and that he's left us to make our way alone with no proof of his existence, but if we don't believe in him he'll deny us eternal life.

Johnny Pneumatic

25th February 2004, 02:08 PM

Riddick, where do you get your BS? from daddy?

ehbowen

25th February 2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious

Woah there, cousin (I can call you cousin, right? Seeing as how we both belong to Satan?)

Don't flatter yourself. I haven't belonged to Satan for more than 30 years.

Let me see if I've got your timeline right:

1) God creates children with no knowledge of good and evil.

But they did have full knowledge of obedience and disobedience and right and wrong.

2) God puts children in a situation where only the knowledge of good (obeying God) and evil (disobeying God) would prevent them from doing evil (disobeying God, eating fruit).

All they needed to know was obedience and disobedience. Which they did.

3) God's children predictably fail his little entrapment scheme and eat the fruit.

"Predictably?" For twenty-plus years I have routinely worked around equipment labeled "DANGER - HIGH VOLTAGE." You know what? In all of that twenty-plus years I have never yet decided that I know better than the men who hung those signs and reached in to find out whether or not it was true for myself.

The Bible gives no hint as to how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden. It could have been five years, ten years, or even longer. Personally, I believe that it was long enough that Satan could see that the only way he was going to win was if he actively intervened.

4) God disowns his children and decides to torture them for eternity for doing wrong.

Actually, the Bible is silent on exactly when God prepared the everlasting fire for the Devil and his angels. Personally, I think it happened no earlier than the Flood, when evil got so out of hand that God was compelled to turn a blind eye to it no longer.

5) Satan adopts God's children.

No, Satan took them as slaves. And their children, and their children....

6) Thousands of years later, God decides he'd like his kids back. He sends his son (himself) to sacrifice himself to himself, so that he can re-adopt his own ex-children and stop the sufferring he imposes upon them himself.

"Thousands of years?" More like fifteen minutes. Or less. It was at the same time that God was pronouncing the curse on Adam and Eve that he promised that the woman's seed would bruise the serpent's head. It just took thousands of years for the plan to come to completion.

Questions:

If god is omniscient, why couldn't he forsee his little experiment in Eden was an inevitable failure? I'm not omniscient, and I can see it.

But it hasn't been a failure. You are thinking short term. God thinks long term. Out of that "failure" came Abel. And Enoch. And Noah. And Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, David...and so forth clear down to the present day.

You seem to have an exaggerated opinion of your own importance in God's eyes. We who are Christians have probably contributed to that by our repeated pleas for you to turn to God and our emphasis on all that he has done to make reconciliation possible. And this much is true: You have the potential to be equal in God's eyes to any of the great heroes of the faith--if you repent and believe.

But that hasn't happened yet.

You aren't a child of God. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. You want God to be "fair" with you? To quote Tom Clancy: "'Fair' means all my Marines come back alive." You're not one of 'my Marines.' You are the enemy.

God is focused on his children--past, present, and future. He takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. But he will no more hesitate to carry out that destruction than General Patton would have hesitated to mow down a hundred thousand Germans in order to liberate a hundred American prisoners.

Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares. Our lives are intertwined together for the time being. It may be that your existence is linked, in some way, with my own. But I am wheat. I am going to be saved, and preserved, and glorified. What you are is not yet certain. It may be, in the future, that by coming to repentance you may show yourself to also be wheat. But for the moment, you look like a tare.

If he could forsee it, why would he punish his own creations with abandonment and eternal torture, for having flaws he specifically created them with?

The classic argument of the liberal who would set the murderers and rapists free because they all had such disadvantaged childhoods. Before God, that will fly like a lead balloon. I've got two words for you: Individual responsibility. It is our choices which define our lives, and it is for those choices that we will be judged. I have chosen to spend my life seeking God. What have your choices been?

Why would God need to sacrifice himself to himself to allow himself to re-adopt his children? Isn't he supposed to be omnipotent? Couldn't he just... re-adopt them? Couldn't he just STOP torturing them?

I have insufficient data to be dogmatic. But I will tell you what I think. I think the conflict between God and Satan--the as-yet-unresolved conflict--is primarily LEGAL in nature. For God to simply arbitrarily act by force majeur would be to establish the precedent that "might makes right."

I am convinced that God's Kingdom is a kingdom under law. Choose to pledge your allegiance to it, and you have the protection of that law. Reject God's legitimate authority, and you remain outside the kingdom, free to do as you please. The trouble with anarchy, though, is that it inevitably gives way to tyranny as the strongest individual rises to the top. Which in this case is Satan. And that is Hell.

I believe that God's purpose and plan includes this: He wants to grant every person that which they most wish. [So why haven't you won the lottery? Well, in some "alternate reality," I believe you have. Long story.] And I believe that, in Satan's case, that which he most wishes is to become equal in power with Almighty God.

I believe that God intends to grant that request--in fact, perhaps, that he already has. But by working slowly, step by step, one precedent at a time in order to redeem those of us who are Christians, God has established as precedent that no one--not even himself--can act arbitrarily or capriciously and escape facing the consequences of their actions. If God has to account for his own actions and those of his children, then God will be able to hold Satan fully accountable, including both criminal and civil liability, for the misuse of the power which Satan so desperately craves.

Zero

26th February 2004, 03:38 AM

:s2:

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

So, you're saying that Adam and Eve are still alive?

Their earthly bodies are not alive, no.

If our souls choose where they will go, then God, by definition, is not omnipotent.

Right. Dictionary/human definitions about God do not define God's omnipotence, he is omnipotent in spite of all restrictions and rules and laws we would establish. If the idea you state above restricts God, then that would mean you have the power to restrict God. Rather, God allows all of his created creatures to choose to accept or reject him. I find it curious that anyone would desire anything different, since love must be freely given. To coerce someone to love you, it's an absurd idea.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Why must we pay for it? If your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather murdered someone should you have to rot in prison?
Surely God would be more just than we "sinfull humans".

If it's genetic or inherent there is no sense whining about it, particularly since the way to redemption exists. If there were no hope, I'd be upset about all this too.

Can It make "immortal beings" sterile?

No, because immortal beings are inherently creative, even if we may be sterile sexually we have the ability to think and feel and make/do things.

-Elliot

Zero

26th February 2004, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

If it's genetic or inherent there is no sense whining about it, particularly since the way to redemption exists. If there were no hope, I'd be upset about all this too.

No, because immortal beings are inherently creative, even if we may be sterile sexually we have the ability to think and feel and make/do things.

-Elliot LOL

Zero

26th February 2004, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Their earthly bodies are not alive, no.

Right. Dictionary/human definitions about God do not define God's omnipotence, he is omnipotent in spite of all restrictions and rules and laws we would establish. If the idea you state above restricts God, then that would mean you have the power to restrict God. Rather, God allows all of his created creatures to choose to accept or reject him. I find it curious that anyone would desire anything different, since love must be freely given. To coerce someone to love you, it's an absurd idea.

-Elliot That's even funnier than your other post!! Do you not realize that your beliefs contradict themselves?

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Why would god send anyone to hell? Based on the belief that god is perfect, then it stands to reason that a perfect being would create only perfection, so I and everyone/thing is perfect and exactly what god wanted. If the perfect being CHOSE to create anything other than perfection - that's It's choice, not my fault.

The *go to hell* phrase is serviceable but, for many theologians, not the most mature way of understanding this. Individuals will not be forced to embrace God, and God will allow individuals to reject reconciliation and *go to hell*. Hell would not be a place so much as a rejection of God and an absence of God's grace. To reject God means to accept yourself and your own ideas, so every hell will be unique and individualistic. I think it very likely that an individual will create a *hell* to rationalize their own rejection of God...this *hell* could very well correspond to the popular imageries. In othe words, an individual will hold on to the idea that they have been sent to hell because they will blame God for not being allowed to make the individual will greater than the will of God.

A perfect being can not create only perfection, because everything a perfect being does is contingent. A perfect being can beget perfection, but humans are not begotten, but made.

God wanted created beings to want. See? You would apparently have God create individuals who only have the option of wanting one thing and one way. These would be machines, incapable of choice.

The fault does lie with you. You are making this seem as though since we are created with free will, therefore any choice we make is equally right or OK. That is nonsense. We are created to love or hate, and they are not equal. No, it is not your fault that you have the capacity to choose evil, but it is your fault if you do choose evil. This is very logical; all men have the capacity to rape a woman/man/animal, but that doesn't mean we are all forced to do so, or no blame should befall us if we choose to do so.

"God is merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet not create them at all?

Your definition of mercy, no doubt, does not correspond to either God's, or to most deists. Immortal beings are created and respected; to "snap" a sinner out of existence would be the same as saying God made a mistake in creating an immortal being, or, that God does not have respect for the free will that he gives all immortal beings.

If you choose to hold onto the *send them to hell* idea, this means you believe in that concept. I can't argue with your belief here. If you choose to argue this concept/belief, it is apparent that you hold it as truth. I can't argue with your take on hell since you hold it so dearly.

Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't It do it Itself?

Because we are all in this together. Humans are supposed to love each other. Parents spread good ideas to their children. God started it in Jesus, and humans are supposed to spread the Word. Since we aren't going to do it very well, salvation can be had if you never had another human pass the Word to you.

If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies?

It isn't a matter of location so much as a connection; the spirit is, perhaps, on a different dimension or level of existence, but still connected to each human being.

More later.

-Elliot

Zero

26th February 2004, 04:50 AM

All I see are rationalizations for inherently illogical positions.

Graham

26th February 2004, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

The *go to hell* phrase is serviceable but, for many theologians, not the most mature way of understanding this. Individuals will not be forced to embrace God, and God will allow individuals to reject reconciliation and *go to hell*. Hell would not be a place so much as a rejection of God and an absence of God's grace. To reject God means to accept yourself and your own ideas, so every hell will be unique and individualistic. I think it very likely that an individual will create a *hell* to rationalize their own rejection of God...this *hell* could very well correspond to the popular imageries. In othe words, an individual will hold on to the idea that they have been sent to hell because they will blame God for not being allowed to make the individual will greater than the will of God.

This seems like a good moment to repeat Randfan's query. Elliot:

How sure are you that Hank is not going to kick the sh** out of you? (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv)

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, Elliot, how can you not see the similarities between your positions and those of the two nice gentlemen at the door?

Graham

Zero

26th February 2004, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Graham

This seems like a good moment to repeat Randfan's query. Elliot:

How sure are you that Hank is not going to kick the sh** out of you? (http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mv)

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, Elliot, how can you not see the similarities between your positions and those of the two nice gentlemen at the door?

Graham Thanks for the link...I went from there, read a parody of a Chick Tract, and stumbled across a good question for our nutty Christian friends, in reference to Jesus: Why would "God" sacrifice himself to himself in order to allow him to change a rule he made himself?

You know, besids the fact that the Jesus myth is a story swiped from other religions by suck-up Christian toadies 2000 years ago?

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Zero
All I see are rationalizations for inherently illogical positions.

Listen Zero, you gotta do the best you can. Everything posted on this forum is a rationalization, and if your beliefs tell you that a line of reasoning is "inherently illogical" there's not much I can do about it I guess.

Is logic a standard separate from humans (inherency)? Our default assumptions differ so no doubt you think I am illogical. I think everyone is logical, once you understand their default assumptions and personal intellectual needs.

If you don't want to believe in God, you don't have to, and if you want to believe in God you can. No reason to ask theological questions at all if you think theology is inherently illogical, not much logic in that.

-Elliot

Zero

26th February 2004, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Listen Zero, you gotta do the best you can. Everything posted on this forum is a rationalization, and if your beliefs tell you that a line of reasoning is "inherently illogical" there's not much I can do about it I guess.

Is logic a standard separate from humans (inherency)? Our default assumptions differ so no doubt you think I am illogical. I think everyone is logical, once you understand their default assumptions and personal intellectual needs.

If you don't want to believe in God, you don't have to, and if you want to believe in God you can. No reason to ask theological questions at all if you think theology is inherently illogical, not much logic in that.

-Elliot Well, I would like to understand the disease, so that I can be better equipped to challenge it. ;)

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Why did God flood the earth to remove evil? It didn't work! Evil came right back, God should have known that would happen! So why did It bother?

I'm not sure if God did flood the earth.

One theory is that the flood was to destroy the Nephilim, offspring of demons/humans who were wreaking unrelenting havoc on an overwhelmed humanity.

Of course the flood didn't work. It it did work it would be superior, or at least equal, to Jesus, and no Christian can believe that.

If the garden of Eden was a perfect paradise as xians claim, then why did Eve even want to eat the fruit? Wouldn't a perfect place provide everything a person would want or desire and thus she would want nothing?

Because immortal beings have free will, inspite of their material surroundings.

I don't get your second question. You say a perfect place would provide for everything a person wants, and then you say such a person would want nothing? In other words you consider all wants, but then say they don't exist? I'm not following you.

Why would an all-powerful god become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that his creation might escape the wrath of himself. Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, come up with something a little more efficient?

You are fixated on "the wrath" of God. Christians see the sacrifice as one of love, and not wrath.

Efficiency? Why should the universe be as efficient as you would have it be? You are trying to place your own personal preference as superior to the way things are.

Anyhow I don't see what efficiency has to do with this. We are offerred salvation and we fret about efficiency?

Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?

Of course the concept, and definition of day, is contingent upon a solar system (specifically ours, but more generally any solar system). The 7th day thing, in my opinion, is a nice touch added to an unobservable creation story.

What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that It doesn't know already?

Perspective. Man can not save himself, and prayer demonstrates this reality. We have to ask for help, and not be ashamed of asking for help.

The omni-stuff is not relavant here. The problem is us. We have to capitulate and continually convert ourselves, and prayer is a way of doing this.

I think there is some good stuff here, mock it as you will:
http://www.oldlandmarks.com/embpurp.htm

Did Adam have nipples? If so, how did he acquire them? In fact, why would God give man nipples at all? They serve no purpose other than lactation.

I'm not sure if Adam had nipples but I reckon he did. Should I address the belly button thing too?

Anyhow, he would not have acquired them actively, but passively.

Why would an artist perform a certain brushstroke on a painting?

Nipples do serve a purpose. They are filled with nerves, and become erect during stress/cold/excitiation/stimulation.

How did Adam and Eve know it was wrong to disobey God if they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) yet? You can't blame them if they didn't know.

Forget blame for a second...he did say they would die if they ate from the tree. Free will comes from this idea. They were free to eat from any tree, but God added a statement to *not* to something, which is an automatic value judgment.

Returning to blame, yes, you can blame someone for being disobedient, and doing something they were told not to do. You are fixated on the "knowledge of good and evil", but you assume that means Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil independent of the tree. That is false, because God's command installed the concept of that in them: good (free will to eat from trees) and evil (stay away from this particular tree).

Why does SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occur? Why would God allow a baby to live for such a short period of time? Why not just let them not be born in the first place?

You pick a certain kind of death, knowing fully well that death is a reality of life. Christians know this as well.

Death is a continuum, there are thousands of ways to die, and since there are different ways, some will be worse (the one you picked, you obviously chose that one for a reason) than others.

God allows a baby to live for a short time, and the soul has eternal life. Our souls are not babies, though some souls are more immature than others.

To let them not be born in the first place would take this eternal life from them.

[QUOTE]If Jesus was nailed and died on Friday evening, and walked out of the tomb on Sunday morning, where's the 3rd NIGHT he predicted? Per Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. [/QUOTE

http://www.kencollins.com/Question-09.htm

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, I would like to understand the disease, so that I can be better equipped to challenge it. ;)

No problem, that's why I'm here I guess. :)

It seems a bit sterile to call other people illogical. It's a label that hardly needs to be stated. If someone really is illogical it should be self-evident. My point was that we have different assumptions when it comes to tackling these questions, and the *illogic* can be understood by understanding that.

I hardly take it personal that you call me illogical/diseased, it is actually just a bit amusing that the dialogue degenerates to name-calling. Again, we all have to do the best we can.

-Elliot

Graham

26th February 2004, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

http://www.kencollins.com/Question-09.htm

-Elliot [/B]

Basically, he's saying that because there's lots of other glaring inconsistencies in the bible we shouldn't worry about this one particular problem?

Graham

Acrimonious

26th February 2004, 06:52 AM

Don't flatter yourself. I haven't belonged to Satan for more than 30 years.

Don't flatter yourself. You believe you haven't belonged to Satan for more than 30 years.

I believe neither of us have ever belonged to Satan.

1) God creates children with no knowledge of good and evil.

But they did have full knowledge of obedience and disobedience and right and wrong.

2) God puts children in a situation where only the knowledge of good (obeying God) and evil (disobeying God) would prevent them from doing evil (disobeying God, eating fruit).

All they needed to know was obedience and disobedience. Which they did.

OK, so Adam and Eve knew obedience and disobedience and the difference between right and wrong. Great!

Major Problem: How exactly do you propose they could utilize such knowledge without knowing that obedience of God is good and disobedience of God is evil?

How would they know right = good? How would they know wrong = evil?

They can't. The question remains.

3) God's children predictably fail his little entrapment scheme and eat the fruit.

"Predictably?" For twenty-plus years I have routinely worked around equipment labeled "DANGER - HIGH VOLTAGE." You know what? In all of that twenty-plus years I have never yet decided that I know better than the men who hung those signs and reached in to find out whether or not it was true for myself.
Yes, but you understand the hazards involved with HIGH VOLTAGE. Imagine instead, that you had no comprehension of what "DANGER" or "HIGH VOLTAGE" meant. The sign becomes meaningless. Curiousity would eventually get the best of you.

The Bible gives no hint as to how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden. It could have been five years, ten years, or even longer. Personally, I believe that it was long enough that Satan could see that the only way he was going to win was if he actively intervened.
This makes no difference. God would still have known Satan would "intervene" beforehand. God is omniscient. God would have known the entire outcome of Eden before it happened.

You worship a God who knew your race was going to damn itself if God set up the rules in Eden a particular way. God set it up that way, anyway. When it failed like he knew it would, he punished mankind for doing exactly what he knew we would.

That is the definition of Entrapment.

4) God disowns his children and decides to torture them for eternity for doing wrong.

Actually, the Bible is silent on exactly when God prepared the everlasting fire for the Devil and his angels. Personally, I think it happened no earlier than the Flood, when evil got so out of hand that God was compelled to turn a blind eye to it no longer.

The timetable is irrelevant. The point of my statement is: God abandoned his children and decided to torture them for all eternity. Does that sound like a good parent to you? Abandonment and torture?

Satan adopts God's children.

No, Satan took them as slaves. And their children, and their children....

And who could blame him for that? Here's a race God just completely abandoned. They breed like rabbits. Cheap labor.

Thousands of years later, God decides he'd like his kids back. He sends his son (himself) to sacrifice himself to himself, so that he can re-adopt his own ex-children and stop the sufferring he imposes upon them himself.

"Thousands of years?" More like fifteen minutes. Or less. It was at the same time that God was pronouncing the curse on Adam and Eve that he promised that the woman's seed would bruise the serpent's head. It just took thousands of years for the plan to come to completion.
HE'S GOD. Omnipotence? Why would God plan a salvation that wouldn't occur for thousands of years, screwing hundreds of generations of his own, abandoned children out of the chance of it, when he could just as easily snap his fingers and have it done?

If god is omniscient, why couldn't he forsee his little experiment in Eden was an inevitable failure? I'm not omniscient, and I can see it.

But it hasn't been a failure. You are thinking short term. God thinks long term. Out of that "failure" came Abel. And Enoch. And Noah. And Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, David...and so forth clear down to the present day.
Who were all doomed to hell because God hadn't yet sacrificed himself to himself to undo a rule he imposed, himself. What a waste.

You seem to have an exaggerated opinion of your own importance in God's eyes. We who are Christians have probably contributed to that by our repeated pleas for you to turn to God and our emphasis on all that he has done to make reconciliation possible. And this much is true: You have the potential to be equal in God's eyes to any of the great heroes of the faith--if you repent and believe.

And I'm the one with the exaggerated opinion of my own importance? I have nowhere near the amount of presumption necessary to consider the thought that I'm important enough to live after death.

I'm not the one looking down from a high horse, pissing on people who don't share my superstion.

You aren't a child of God. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. You want God to be "fair" with you? To quote Tom Clancy: "'Fair' means all my Marines come back alive." You're not one of 'my Marines.' You are the enemy.
You aren't a child of Yaldeboath. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution. You want Yaldeboath to be "fair" with you? To quote Philip K Dick: "Deedle Deedle Queep."

God is focused on his children--past, present, and future.
God is so focused on his children that you admit he abandoned them, and has personally decided to torture many of them for eternity.

He takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. But he will no more hesitate to carry out that destruction than General Patton would have hesitated to mow down a hundred thousand Germans in order to liberate a hundred American prisoners.
Bad Analogy. General Patton didn't have the power to snap his fingers and save those hundred American Prisoners without a single spilled drop of blood.

In contrast, God is supposedly omnipotent, and could easily do such a thing.

Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares. Our lives are intertwined together for the time being. It may be that your existence is linked, in some way, with my own. But I am wheat. I am going to be saved, and preserved, and glorified. What you are is not yet certain. It may be, in the future, that by coming to repentance you may show yourself to also be wheat. But for the moment, you look like a tare.
Nice inflated bit of judgemental pride you have there.

Blessed are the meek...
Judge not, lest ye be judged...

You don't even follow the instructions of your own text. I wouldn't be so sure you're the "wheat" yet, friend.

If he could forsee it, why would he punish his own creations with abandonment and eternal torture, for having flaws he specifically created them with?

The classic argument of the liberal who would set the murderers and rapists free because they all had such disadvantaged childhoods. Before God, that will fly like a lead balloon.
STRAW MAN ALERT! WOOOP WOOOP WOOOP!! STRAW MAN ALERT!!

I've got two words for you: Individual responsibility. It is our choices which define our lives, and it is for those choices that we will be judged. I have chosen to spend my life seeking God. What have your choices been?

I agree up until the dogmatic part. We will be judged by society. We will be judged by juries of our peers. Then we will die, and that will be the end of it.

Why would God need to sacrifice himself to himself to allow himself to re-adopt his children? Isn't he supposed to be omnipotent? Couldn't he just... re-adopt them? Couldn't he just STOP torturing them?

I have insufficient data to be dogmatic. But I will tell you what I think. I think the conflict between God and Satan--the as-yet-unresolved conflict--is primarily LEGAL in nature. For God to simply arbitrarily act by force majeur would be to establish the precedent that "might makes right."

But arbitrarily acting by force with "might makes right" is OK elsewhere?

The Flood. You can't get much mightier than drowning all the sinners.

Sodom & Gomorrah. If you ask me, raining sulphur and physically turning people into salt aren't very weak punishments.

Job. Look at what he did to Job. On a bet. With Satan.

I am convinced that God's Kingdom is a kingdom under law. Choose to pledge your allegiance to it, and you have the protection of that law. Reject God's legitimate authority, and you remain outside the kingdom, free to do as you please. The trouble with anarchy, though, is that it inevitably gives way to tyranny as the strongest individual rises to the top. Which in this case is Satan. And that is Hell.
I am convinced you are nothing more than an indoctrinated religous yes-man. The trouble with yes-men is they are really good at saying yes, and very bad at saying no. They get locked into a self-sustaining loop of agreeing with whatever their perceived superior tells them to without even considering the idea that they could be wrong.

Zero

26th February 2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

No problem, that's why I'm here I guess. :)

It seems a bit sterile to call other people illogical. It's a label that hardly needs to be stated. If someone really is illogical it should be self-evident. My point was that we have different assumptions when it comes to tackling these questions, and the *illogic* can be understood by understanding that.

I hardly take it personal that you call me illogical/diseased, it is actually just a bit amusing that the dialogue degenerates to name-calling. Again, we all have to do the best we can.

-Elliot Well, isn't it about time you actually started doing better? Seriously, going beyond the very basic questions about existance, we can dig deeper and get very specific. Does the Biblical mythology stand up to any rational and logical scrutiny? Since it doesn't, for very obvious reasons, historical, scientific, literary, and others...shouldn't the Bible be abandoned as a sourse of "truth"?

sackett

26th February 2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

. . . I think it very likely that an individual will create a *hell* to rationalize their own rejection of God...
-Elliot

I like your idea there, but: When ~I~ pass over the Great Divide, I'll go to hell because I didn't get enough booze, clean drugs, and barely legal cuties during my life. ~MY~ hell is going to be a VERY whoopee place. Sorry about yours.

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
I still don't understand your Christian God. He's forgiving, right? He's benevolent, right?

Hellfire and Brimstone is neither forgiving nor benevolent. Neither is punishing souls for the rest of eternity for mistakes they made in the span of a few short human years.

I agree. The whole hellfire/brimstone thing is an immature way of thinking about it.

That isn't to say there won't be hellfire/brimstone, as I'm sure a person could very well construct their own hell with those things as ingredients.

I agree, punishing souls for mistakes is not forgiving or benevolent. All persons should and do have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes, understand their mistakes, and ask for forgiveness for their mistakes.

Hypothetically speaking, if you were to ever catch your own children doing something wrong, what would you do?

Temporarily revoke priviledges and try to help them learn why their action was wrong.

OR

Beat them unmercifully every day for the rest of their life.

Well put. I would add, though, that if the children will not admit their mistakes and insist that they were not mistakes, you might have to let them beat themselves up for the rest of their days, if that's what they want to do. It's like there is a brick wall in front of you, you refuse to admit it's there, so you keep ramming your head into it because of stubbornness.

In each of these cases, one punishment is benevolent and forgiving. The other is unfitting, insane, and maniacally cruel.

Right. All I would add is that it would be stupid to refuse to accept God's forgiveness and reject the education process out of pride and refusal to admit one's faults.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
God has always known satan would be like that so why
did It create satan? Riddick you have my deepest pitty
I cannot help you leave the 4kyo mythologys of sheep herders
if you don't want to leave your prison. :(

God didn't create Satan, he created Lucifer. a different name. See, the word Satan means adversary, and that isn't what he created. Rather, the adversary made himself into Satan through free will.

Knowledge of the future does not take away our free will, for if we choose differntly the future would also be different.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Riddick

actually, i'm out of prison now. been there done that.

i feel free as a bird now.

satan was the 3rd highest being at one time. back when his name was lucifer. chief of all the angels. chief over all the created beings. so you see, satan was not always evil. after a time, he desired to be as powerful as God. but lucifer, a created being, could never hold that office. God, the creator, will put Satan to death one day with his followers.

hey, at least they weren't lemming herders.

i will live again after my death. for eternity.

you however, most likely will only enjoy this life. i suggest you live it up while you can, this will be the end of your dance. i'd try to live as long as i could, if i were you. milk it for all you're worth.

Riddick I think you're pretty straight my friend, I'd lay off on the hypothesizing about other peoples' places of eternal residence. It only reinforces what they currently carry. Just a suggestion. We differ on a few theological sentiments, and I'm not a strict believer in the OT, but you've got some great stuff to say at times.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Science improves with time. Religon improves by dying out.-
Quandong Loonata

That is a dogma, or a statement of faith.

Science is a method, of course humans will get better at it over time.

A guy like evildave is fond of reporting on the atrocities of the Middle Ages; Christianity has in fact improved in those respects.

The idea that religion improves by dying out is inherently goofy anyways, it's a cute thing to say in an Ambrose Bierce sort of way, but cynical humor is not reality.

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.-Carl Sagan

Sagan made the assumption that wishful thinking is inherently bad. He also assumes that if something can not be scientifically established, it should not be believed in. Those are both articles of his particular faith, and he found satisfaction in that faith. In his history of interacting with those of other faiths, no doubt he found satisfaction in that interaction, so his wishful thinking was found in defending his faith against others faiths which he found inferior. In this way he was free from fear, and found validation in triumphing over wishful thinking, which was in fact an assumption of faith anyways.

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.-Isaac Asimov

Name calling. The future is important? What is profound in saying that? Putting your faith or hope in stars is a religion of itself.

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.- Carl Sagan

Of course Sagan believed that statement whole-heartedly. We're all believers in something.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Riddick
you're quoting Carl Sagan?

Stephen Hawking has toilet paper with Sagans picture on it.

I rest my case.

Ummm, anyway, we can all agree that Sagan did not believe in marriage vows or respecting a wife/children. Surely we can all agree on that. We can also agree that he liked his marijuana very much.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 07:54 AM

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by ehbowen

You are overlooking a key piece of the puzzle here: Your OWN children. God is benevolent and forgiving to his OWN children--all of them. But we are not all children of God. Ever since that day in the Garden of Eden, when our most remote ancestors chose to obey Satan in preference to God, the entire human race has belonged to Satan.

God has not been satisfied to let that situation be the status quo. He has taken positive action in order to make it possible for those who will accept his lordship and sovereignty to be bought back and to receive adoption as his children. But those who have not made that choice belong to Satan. They end up where he ends up.

Well put. We are not begotten by God, as humans beget their children, but created by God. Jesus enables us to be remade into children of God. I think all Christian faiths accept this dogma.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious

1) God creates children with no knowledge of good and evil.

Incorrect.

2) God puts children in a situation where only the knowledge of good (obeying God) and evil (disobeying God) would prevent them from doing evil (disobeying God, eating fruit).

Just follow the one command that he gave you. They couldn't even do that.

3) God's children predictably fail his little entrapment scheme and eat the fruit.

You have sympathy for disobedience, and your cynical attitude goes against the heart of what Christians believe. Follow God, do not celebrate the possiblity of negativity. Choose life and not death. They were told they would die, given a choice, and they chose death. You call that a trap when it could not have been made anymore clear. There were so many fruits to eat, and one was forbidden. This is like telling someone in a candy store that they can eat any of the thousands of candies except for the Mounds bars (Mounds bars are evil), and the someone eats a Mounds bar. Some trap.

4) God disowns his children and decides to torture them for eternity for doing wrong.

Incorrect

5) Satan adopts God's children.

Ever read Milton? That is one way of thinking about it. Satan appealed to a part of us that accepted his appeal. Misery loves company. Satan supports us in our sin. If that is a kind of adoption, I can see how the wording fits. Read Paradise Lost, and then let's have a discussion about it.

6) Thousands of years later, God decides he'd like his kids back. He sends his son (himself) to sacrifice himself to himself, so that he can re-adopt his own ex-children and stop the sufferring he imposes upon them himself.

No, suffering is a result of sin. Sin must result in suffering.

We are always God's children in a sense, but the idea of sons of God came from Jesus.

If god is omniscient, why couldn't he forsee his little experiment in Eden was an inevitable failure? I'm not omniscient, and I can see it.

There may be other *edens* where a Fall never happened. I don't assume we are the only created creatures who have fallen. Therefore, I don't have to assume that Eden was an inevitable failure. That is your assumption.

If he could forsee it, why would he punish his own creations with abandonment and eternal torture, for having flaws he specifically created them with?

God does not abandon us on earth. Eternal abandonment is a result of the rejection of God's offer of reconciliation. The eternal torture must result from such an abominable decision made by the individual in question. He is happy to cure us of our flaws if we desire it, so there is no reason to fixate on the flaws, which are a result of our fallen nature. Once addressed, the flaws will be washed away.

Why would God need to sacrifice himself to himself to allow himself to re-adopt his children? Isn't he supposed to be omnipotent? Couldn't he just... re-adopt them? Couldn't he just STOP torturing them?

No, we torture ourselves, Your theology is all wrong.

Sin separates us from God, that reality has to be addressed by God in some way, and the way is Jesus.

Sacrifice is a sign of love and understanding. God loves us so much that he died for us, and experienced human suffering to an extreme. Our God does not think suffering is *nothing*, he believes it is so significant that he himself suffered. This is a consolation and perhaps more importantly a sort of validation.

He is supposed to be omnipotent, yet you have a problem with how he operates in his potency.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Quote 1: Science does improve with time(i.e. round earth)
2: no evidence of an afterlife
3: opinion
4:behavior studies

You are mixing up method and reality. The earth has always been round, science has nothing to do with that. Opinion has nothing to do with it.

Reality is independent of human understanding.

A lack of evidence that the earth is round would not make the earth flat. Evidence that the earth is flat would not make the earth flat.

I respect that you put your faith in science. Science is cool. Religion is a different method for understanding different things, which you support only insofar as it approaches death. Of course people have the right to have those opinions, but they are just opinions/dogmas, and surely you understand that religious minded folk think differently.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Zero
The whole thing is a silly childish fairy tale for idiots and toddlers...why try to make sense of it?

From that perspective, I can see your point. If you assume silly, childish, fairy tale, idiots, toddlers, it all is quite daft. Again, we all have to work within the assumptions that we choose to make.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Zero
No, but only a toddler's brain is suitable for the Bible. Anyone past the age of 5 who reads this nonsense and believes it is deficient mentally.

Nice ad hom.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by geni

So over 1/4 of the world is metally deficient? Statisticlaly I find this unlikly. Got any reasurch to back this up?

Geni, this is all formulaic:

-The Bible is nonsense.
-Mentally deficient people believe nonsense.
-Therefore, belief in the Bible means one is mentally deficient.

No need for research, just faith in ad hom opinions. And the more you repeat the ad hom opinions, the stronger your faith becomes, just like any good religion.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Zero
What do I need a statistic for.

Exactly. Who needs statistics?

I look at what Christians believe,

If true, why do you continually word those beliefs in such an atrocious manner?

And how can you possibly know what a person believes?

And what are you looking at? Behavior? Or the texts themselves?

I look at reality,

Who doesn't look at reality, it's all around us.

I get a good impression of the wide chasm between them,

Yes, this is all very personal.

and make an educated assumption.

The educated assumption is that other people are mentally deficient. And little kids in schools call each other stupid idiots (the language is probably a lot worse these days). At least verbalize your educated assumption in an intelligent way.

That assumption is for people to believe things that are obviously made up and false,

Obviously. That word is just used way too much, it no longer means anything. No, it is not obvious. If it was obvious then you wouldn't have to use the word obviously.

False is a judgment call that you can not prove or verify.

they must have some sort of mental problem.

On this your faith rests. They MUST have some sort of mental problem. That has to be the reason. I mean, there is no other logical explanation. What a brilliant use of reasoning.

Nice one.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Zero
The problem you are having is that you seem to lump all mental deficiencies together, and someone who displays one should display multiple dificulties. In the same way that being color blind doesn't mean you are actually blind, you can have a mental deficiency without being retarded. ;)

Believing in illogical things is, IMO, a deficiency. It doesn't necesarily have to be debilitating, but it does exist.

Your mantra is *believing in illogical things*, but saying it over and over again does not make it true.

Zero, what do you base your conception of logic on? Give me specifics please. Let's work this one out, seriously. It's just dogma spouting at the moment that I can't take seriously, and I'll try to take it serious if you supply your basis for making judgments on logic/illogic.

-Elliot

Nyarlathotep

26th February 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Your mantra is *believing in illogical things*, but saying it over and over again does not make it true.

Neither does saying over and over again that God is real.

Simply put, except for deism (which has other problems in my view), religious belief is pretty much incompatible with the evidence showing how the world seems to work. Simply put there is lots of evidence that life and the world came about and operates just fine without the intervention of a diety. There is no evidence for the existance of a diety. Thus I think it is fair to say belief in a diety is illogical.

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by wollery
Actually it's pretty elementary (pun intended), you just take a few solar masses of Hydrogen, add a couple of Jupiter masses of Helium, traces of Lithium and other heavy elements and leave it for a few million years. Presto chango - a star!

You? Who is this *you* that you refer to?

Way to anthropomorphise an omnipotent being.

!!!

Now you're getting it!

Jesus! The anthropomorphic God.

Disappointed? In what? He's omnipresent and omniscient. He knew they were going to do it, and was there watching them all the time they were doing it. Or don't you believe that your God is all knowing and all seeing? This story suggests a very limited deity.

Once you go with free will, to take it away would mean going with free will was a wrong way of going at it. In other words, you are saying what God should have done was contradict himself. He should have given free will to his creatures, but when the free will goes wrong he should nullify it or make it non-existant. So you want a free will that isn't free will. You want a non sequitor from God as a proof of his omnipotence.

So instead you punish them by kicking them out on the street to fend for themselves. Oh yeah, you then let their children and grandchildren etc stay out in the street. (?!)

Christians do not believe that we only fend for ourselves. We have spiritual gifts and sacraments to strengthen us. No, it is not easy, but we are provided with certain redemption if we want it. Your analogy is of an uncertain situation (kids on the street) when our reality is certain salvation if we choose it.

Ah, so he did know that Adam and Eve were going to disobey him (see above).

He knew and it doesn't matter. That knowledge has no influence over free will.

So what if Satan cries foul? Who cares? God? Why? Are you suggesting that God cares more about Satans feelings than the eternal souls of millions of humans? If God's the ultimate being, omnipotent and all that mullarkey then he doesn't have to do anything.

Except for the things he has to do that you mention above? At least stay consistent.

I don't think that God cares more for Satan's feelings etc etc etc, not sure how Riddick would respond.

Something God didn't intend? So he isn't all powerful then?
He'll return? I thought he was omnipresent. If he isn't here then how does he hear peoples prayers?

He is not here in the specific way he was here once and will be again. He is here in spirit and not in what we know as physical reality.

What I find disappointing is the way you make all these assertions and completely fail to see the logical fallacies.

Yeah, you're fond of saying this. A request: make a new subject for the forum entitled "logical fallacies" and let's work them out, and expose the assumptions behind our conclusions.

No, still don't get it. God is supposed to love humanity, and knows way in advance (you said so yourself above) what's going to happen. He knew when he created Satan how that was going to turn out. Didn't stop him though, thus condemning millions (billions even) of souls to fail to be able to live in paradise.

Why make that assumption?

Maybe not a single soul will not be able to live in paradise. I don't know. How do you know?

He does know how it will turn out. In the end, we will all get to make the most important choice of all. That is what he knows. He will allow us to make the choice and his knowledge will have no influence over the choice that we make.

If I knew that my parents were going to get a new house as a present from my brother in two weeks time, yet in the interim my parents buy a new house, that knowledge does not affect the choice that is made. How exactly does knowledge that is withheld or not open to another affect that person's decision making? Looking at my analogy I admit it probably isn't top drawer, I'll think of something else later.

On the one hand you say that God is all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, ever present and loves us. Then you say that he can't interfere with Satan,

He has to let bad choices result in suffering, or else there in no reason to call the bad choices *bad*. Get it? If nothing comes out of an evil choice, why call the choice evil?

didn't realise Satan was going to tempt Eve,

That knowledge is irrelevant. An individual with free will tempted another individual with free will. That is reality, and God's total knowledge does not interfere with that reality.

or that she and Adam were going to fall for that temptation,

God said they would die if they ate from the tree. Adam/Eve did not use the arguments that you use against God. Did you not notice that? If you get pulled over for speeding, will you tell the cop that he knew you would speed? If you can't follow instructions that's your deficiency, and obviously it was Adam and Eve's deficiency as well. As a result all of our natures are sullied; we should not celebrate that fact. It is tragic, we will make bad decisions in this life, and God has given us the way to reconciliation. I'm sorry if you have a problem with all that. Of course God will give you a better explanation/justification (not that he needs to) and you'll have to make a decision about it at that point.

has plans for us (suggesting uncertainty), is going to return someday (which I guess means that he's left us all alone for the time being)

No, that goes against scripture, the Holy Spirit or advocate his here, along with sacraments and the ability to follow our consciences.

and that he's left us to make our way alone with no proof of his existence, but if we don't believe in him he'll deny us eternal life.

There are proofs for his existence, I take it you reject them, and no doubt you have reasons. Rather, you should say the proofs for his existence do not work for you because your assumptions and needs demand that they be wrong.

Yes, if we don't believe in him we'll be denied eternal life.

-Elliot

Zero

26th February 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Your mantra is *believing in illogical things*, but saying it over and over again does not make it true.

Zero, what do you base your conception of logic on? Give me specifics please. Let's work this one out, seriously. It's just dogma spouting at the moment that I can't take seriously, and I'll try to take it serious if you supply your basis for making judgments on logic/illogic.

-Elliot Your claims are illogical. I have read just your posts on this page, and they bear no relation to anything reasonable. Wollery, for instance, has been pointing out the flaws in your thinking, and you continue to be blind to it.

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 09:03 AM

I have insufficient data to be dogmatic. But I will tell you what I think. I think the conflict between God and Satan--the as-yet-unresolved conflict--is primarily LEGAL in nature. For God to simply arbitrarily act by force majeur would be to establish the precedent that "might makes right."

Eric, have you ever read the Once and Future King?

The precedent you mention...would you say that it is noble but ultimately hopeless, or, that nothing that is ultimately hopeless could possibly by noble?

I am convinced that God's Kingdom is a kingdom under law. Choose to pledge your allegiance to it, and you have the protection of that law. Reject God's legitimate authority, and you remain outside the kingdom, free to do as you please. The trouble with anarchy, though, is that it inevitably gives way to tyranny as the strongest individual rises to the top. Which in this case is Satan. And that is Hell.

Well put, but God is the strongest individual in his own Kingdom of course. Hierarchy demands that the strongest be at the top. The strongest has to rule...tyranny is when this rule is divorced from what is the default concept of *good* justice that most of us have.

I believe that God's purpose and plan includes this: He wants to grant every person that which they most wish. [So why haven't you won the lottery? Well, in some "alternate reality," I believe you have. Long story.] And I believe that, in Satan's case, that which he most wishes is to become equal in power with Almighty God.

Again, well put...

I believe that God intends to grant that request--in fact, perhaps, that he already has. But by working slowly, step by step, one precedent at a time in order to redeem those of us who are Christians, God has established as precedent that no one--not even himself--can act arbitrarily or capriciously and escape facing the consequences of their actions.

...and that is the necessary corrollary.

-Elliot

wollery

26th February 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Is logic a standard separate from humans (inherency)? Our default assumptions differ so no doubt you think I am illogical. I think everyone is logical, once you understand their default assumptions and personal intellectual needs.

If you don't want to believe in God, you don't have to, and if you want to believe in God you can. No reason to ask theological questions at all if you think theology is inherently illogical, not much logic in that.
The logic (or lack of) of a statement does not depend on any previous assumptions. Logic is independent of humans. Let me give you an example.

If I were to state that 3+4=12 then you would instantly say that this was a false statement. If I then said that, based on that first equation it follows that 12-4=3 you would say that that second equation was also false. But the second equation is logically true, based on the assumption that the first equation is true. If, however, I said that based on the first equation it follows that 12-4=8 that would be logically false, even though factually true.

You can therefore see that something is logically false only if it contradicts its own assumptions.

This is your logical fallacy. You make statements about the nature of God, and then attribute behaviour/ thought/ reason/ action which contradict the initial statements.

That isn't to say that God doesn't exist, just that your statements about his nature are self contradictory and therefore illogical.

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Zero
That's even funnier than your other post!! Do you not realize that your beliefs contradict themselves?

Might as well spit it out Zero.

You, I think, have the idea that God's allowing his created creatures to do *evil* things means that God is not omnipotent.

All this means is that created creatures are not God, and have a potency that is less than God's. You are confusing the potency of imperfect beings with the potency of God. God's allowing imperfect beings to act imperfectly is a necessary corrollary to their existence. You would have a different kind of being in existence, a being who could not act imperfectly, and could not be God. Such a being would not be able to love, for love is a choice. God's plan makes love possible.

The only way this could be a contradiction in omnipotence is if you would have God create a limited version of free will. That would mean that free will is only a sort-of good idea. It either is, or it isn't. We have the freedom to make the right choice, and there is a right choice to be made.

So do you, or don't you, believe in free will?

If God sees the result of his free will and makes it go away in the way you would have him do, can you see that God would be admitting that free will is in fact a bad idea, and thus you would have us believe in a God who is not omnipotent (capable of performing a bad act)?

Don't be coy Zero, the *LOL* business is cute and all, let's have a discussion if possible.

-Elliot

Zero

26th February 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by wollery
*snip*
That isn't to say that God doesn't exist, just that your statements about his nature are self contradictory and therefore illogical. [/B]You put it better than I could, but that is just what I was getting at when I posted earlier, " Do you not realize that your beliefs contradict themselves?"

The concept of "God" that is generally posited by Christians is logically inconsistant with itself. For instance, saying that love cannot be coerced and "God" wouldn't do that, directly conflicts with the Biblical punishment and reward system.

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Graham
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, Elliot, how can you not see the similarities between your positions and those of the two nice gentlemen at the door?

Graham

No, because God does not ask us to kiss his ass. That is an inherently demeaning and degrading idea, and the fact that the cute story uses it says more about the people behind the story that it does about God.

Listen, I can't help what concepts you have in your head. If ass-kissing is how you think about it, I'm sorry about that. You see ugliness where other people see beauty.

The reward/punishment thing is, to me, a juvenile concept, but I only say that because I had that idea as a juvenile. For others I would not call it a juvenile concept, but it is a concept which basically everybody over the age of 6 will grapple with. I do not denigrate life by relegating it to a reward, not do I diminish death by calling it punishment. Life or death.

-Elliot

Zero

26th February 2004, 09:19 AM

Here's another example:

If "God" has a plan, and that plan has existed since the begining of time, then prayer and free will are incoherent notions. If "God" has scripted everything that will happen, in advance, then either a) prayer is ineffective, because "God" already knows what he is going to do, regardless of what we think of it, or b) we have no free will, because "God" has already included the prayer into his plan, which means that we had no choice but to make that prayer.

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Why would "God" sacrifice himself to himself in order to allow him to change a rule he made himself?

Not change the rule. The rule stands. Rather, the rule can be overcome, or transcended. But if you can not see past the rule, the rule will stand.

You know, besids the fact that the Jesus myth is a story swiped from other religions by suck-up Christian toadies 2000 years ago?

That is a statement of faith. Leibnitz and Newton both came up with the calculus separately. Morals are generally the same from religion to religion, skeptics included.

Of course the Jesus story is similar to stories in other religions. God's love made manifest in a sacrifice, all religions have something like that going on.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Graham

Basically, he's saying that because there's lots of other glaring inconsistencies in the bible we shouldn't worry about this one particular problem?

Graham

Is that all you got from it Graham? That you take that statement out of the article is quite telling. And that isn't even what he was saying.

-Elliot

Zero

26th February 2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Not change the rule. The rule stands. Rather, the rule can be overcome, or transcended. But if you can not see past the rule, the rule will stand.

Bullpussy!! An exception to a rule is a change to the rule. But, we'll take it again from the top, assuming your logic, because it doesn't change the dilemma: Why would "God" sacrifice himself to himself in order to [/i]create an exception to[/i] a rule he made himself?

Johnny Pneumatic

26th February 2004, 09:34 AM

Of course the Jesus story is similar to stories in other religions.-elliotfc

yeah, to similar. Ever hear of Mithra?

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
Major Problem: How exactly do you propose they could utilize such knowledge without knowing that obedience of God is good and disobedience of God is evil?

Well they were told that they would die if they were to eat of the tree. Thus, the knowledge was attached to a result. The result is the opposite of life, so the result was evil.

How would they know right = good? How would they know wrong = evil?

By being obedient.

Yes, but you understand the hazards involved with HIGH VOLTAGE. Imagine instead, that you had no comprehension of what "DANGER" or "HIGH VOLTAGE" meant. The sign becomes meaningless. Curiousity would eventually get the best of you.

You make the assumption that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil!

Listen there are books of husbandry out there that I have never read from, but I understand some general concepts about husbandry because of what I've heard. Same thing with this situation. Yes, there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil but Adam and Eve already had an idea of good and evil based on what God told them.

This makes no difference. God would still have known Satan would "intervene" beforehand. God is omniscient. God would have known the entire outcome of Eden before it happened.

So what? What does that knowledge have to do with free will?

You worship a God who knew your race was going to damn itself if God set up the rules in Eden a particular way.

No, damnation is separate from the fall, two different concepts.

God set it up that way, anyway. When it failed like he knew it would, he punished mankind for doing exactly what he knew we would.

He knew we would do it because he respected our free will, see? That knowledge is a result of free will. You think that the free will is a result of knowledge.

That is the definition of Entrapment.

Having free will is enough for your definition. If we have free will, we have entrapment, is that your point of view?

The timetable is irrelevant. The point of my statement is: God abandoned his children and decided to torture them for all eternity. Does that sound like a good parent to you? Abandonment and torture?

No. That is why I don't believe that a)God abandoned his children and b)God tortures his children.

And who could blame him for that? Here's a race God just completely abandoned. They breed like rabbits. Cheap labor.

Well not all of them breed like rabbits.

And the fact of Jesus means that he did not abandon us.

And the creation of new human beings is a remarkable co-creative miracle, where humans are allowed to help create an eternal being. It's a gift, and you would call that gift slavery? The exile is temporary, but you don't see that. We are strangers and sojourners but not eternally divorced from God.

HE'S GOD. Omnipotence? Why would God plan a salvation that wouldn't occur for thousands of years, screwing hundreds of generations of his own, abandoned children out of the chance of it, when he could just as easily snap his fingers and have it done?

In the context of eternity....

No created immortals are screwed since they may all be redeemed if they choose.

And you keep mentioning abandonment when no Christian believes that, unless of course the individual desires that God abandons him/her.

God can do anything, but we know he *did* the free will thing, and he is content that when free will embraces evil, suffering will result from that. That is only logical. You want everything to be easy? The crucifixion was not easy. I don't think it's about easy, in fact, it's very hard in fact. Bad choices, and their results, are so serious that they must be played out. If they were not serious, then the *snap of the fingers* would be OK. Obviously God takes it all more seriously than you.

Who were all doomed to hell because God hadn't yet sacrificed himself to himself to undo a rule he imposed, himself. What a waste.

You're only doomed to hell if you want to be doomed to hell.

And I'm the one with the exaggerated opinion of my own importance? I have nowhere near the amount of presumption necessary to consider the thought that I'm important enough to live after death.

Everybody is important enough to live after death. Not sure if importance is the right way to be looking at this, but sure, we are made in the image of God so we should feel important.

I'm not the one looking down from a high horse, pissing on people who don't share my superstion.

Oh please your whole post is full of piss and vitriol. This whole forum is a high horse pissing on the religious.

God is so focused on his children that you admit he abandoned them, and has personally decided to torture many of them for eternity.

Eric admitted no such thing.

Bad Analogy. General Patton didn't have the power to snap his fingers and save those hundred American Prisoners without a single spilled drop of blood.

Blood (literally/figuratively) must be spilled when evil choices are made. That is why the choices are evil.

In contrast, God is supposedly omnipotent, and could easily do such a thing.

And to do that would be an admission that free will was not the way to go, and God can not possibly make such an admission because that would contradict the fact that his decisions are perfect, regardless of the standards of the imperfect creatures that we are.

I agree up until the dogmatic part. We will be judged by society. We will be judged by juries of our peers. Then we will die, and that will be the end of it.

Your faith has been held throughout history, it may be true or false, we'll see how it goes. I'd ask that you consider that your faith may be wrong (I consider my faith is wrong often) and think about the possibility. If it's all oblivion in the end, I'm a bit amused that you are so interested in other people's ideas, since oblivion would result for all of us according to your faith. All of this matters, then, because of your personal intellect. Your personal intellect finds theology enough to consider it, and you reject it. Out of curiousity have you ever considered the alternative though? Just wondering.

You have your own standards of morality. You are a fan of the species no doubt. These are all noble ideas. As a Christian I think you'll be fine, even in your disbelief. You're after the truth, and when you're given the truth, you'll go after it.

That's why I don't ever tell people they are going to hell, it's just silly. I examine what people are after. When people are fixated on ugliness I get worried, but that really shouldn't (really shouldn't really shouldn't) get in the way of desiring truth and embracing it when it is in your grasp.

The Flood. You can't get much mightier than drowning all the sinners.

Sodom & Gomorrah. If you ask me, raining sulphur and physically turning people into salt aren't very weak punishments.

Job. Look at what he did to Job. On a bet. With Satan.

Jews, interested in theology, mused and we have the results.

I am convinced you are nothing more than an indoctrinated religous yes-man. The trouble with yes-men is they are really good at saying yes, and very bad at saying no. They get locked into a self-sustaining loop of agreeing with whatever their perceived superior tells them to without even considering the idea that they could be wrong.

Your perceived superior is yourself. Do you ever consider that you may be wrong? Just wondering.

Your affirmation is as strong as Eric's. But let me guess, your faith is correct and Eric's is wrong. Since you can't even state the Christian faith correctly, I can hardly come to that conclusion.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Well, isn't it about time you actually started doing better? Seriously, going beyond the very basic questions about existance, we can dig deeper and get very specific. Does the Biblical mythology stand up to any rational and logical scrutiny? Since it doesn't, for very obvious reasons, historical, scientific, literary, and others...shouldn't the Bible be abandoned as a sourse of "truth"?

Well I view the gospels different from the O.T., even though they are in the same book.

I cam content that the gospels are accurate accounts. We don't have Jesus' bones, and if there was a conspiracy someone would have spilled it when faced with death. That is how I look at it rationally.

We could get into an O.T. discussion but frankly I'm not interested, maybe this summer, I'll devote the day to this forum but I gotta buckle down after today.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by sackett

I like your idea there, but: When ~I~ pass over the Great Divide, I'll go to hell because I didn't get enough booze, clean drugs, and barely legal cuties during my life. ~MY~ hell is going to be a VERY whoopee place. Sorry about yours.

Hmmm. No, there can't be any pleasures in hell because hell is total futility and an absence of all that is good.

See, pleasure is good, even if it can be had in perverted ways on earth. But earth is not hell.

-Elliot

wollery

26th February 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc
quote:
This makes no difference. God would still have known Satan would "intervene" beforehand. God is omniscient. God would have known the entire outcome of Eden before it happened.

So what? What does that knowledge have to do with free will?

quote:
You worship a God who knew your race was going to damn itself if God set up the rules in Eden ab particular way.

No, damnation is separate from the fall, two different concepts.

quote:
God set it up that way, anyway. When it failed like he knew it would, he punished mankind for doing exactly what he knew we would.

He knew we would do it because he respected our free will, see? That knowledge is a result of free will. You think that the free will is a result of knowledge.Woop Woop, logical fallacy alert, logical fallacy alert, woop woop.

Okay, try to follow the logic.

Your definition of God says that he knows everything and is perfect, and in the above statement you say that "He knew we would do it".

If God knows beforehand what choices we make then those choices cannot be made differently. If they are made differently to the way God knows they will be then God doesn't know everything and is imperfect. If, on the other hand, they are made the way God knows they will be then the choices were preknown, which means that they must be predetermined, which means that we do not have free will.

Either God does not know what will happen or we do not have free will.

This implies that either God is imperfect or we are just programmed robots.

Since your definition of God is that he is perfect it follows that we are programmed robots acting out Gods play with no free will.

That, my friend, is logic. You declared the assumptions on which it is based and the conclusions are inescapable.

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Neither does saying over and over again that God is real.

Touche, the behavior is remarkably similar, save for the fact that mine isn't inherently a personal attack against another. A small detail.

Simply put, except for deism (which has other problems in my view), religious belief is pretty much incompatible with the evidence showing how the world seems to work.

The world seems to work, and based on that seeming explanations are manufactured. What exactly does the evidence seem to show again?

Simply put there is lots of evidence that life and the world came about and operates just fine without the intervention of a diety.

Instead non-deity theories intervene and materialist schemes intervene. As a Christian all I need is one intervention (Jesus). This all depends on what, exactly, a person's needs are. Many people have the need to prove that God doesn't exist, and all of the proofs I've ever seen do not prove that to be so. To me the world seems designed, and that is enough for me. To have a taboo against divine intervention is a personal issue.

There is no evidence for the existance of a diety. Thus I think it is fair to say belief in a diety is illogical.

OK, I can see why you say that based on your antipathy against of the idea of divine intervention. You may not need that belief, but you do need others. In any case, you like all deists can not prove what you believe, so you do the best you can based on your own personal needs.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Your claims are illogical. I have read just your posts on this page, and they bear no relation to anything reasonable. Wollery, for instance, has been pointing out the flaws in your thinking, and you continue to be blind to it.

Zero, I can't respond to such posts anymore, so I won't. Just be specific, and define your assumptions, and maybe we can get something going.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by wollery
The logic (or lack of) of a statement does not depend on any previous assumptions. Logic is independent of humans. Let me give you an example.

If I were to state that 3+4=12 then you would instantly say that this was a false statement. If I then said that, based on that first equation it follows that 12-4=3 you would say that that second equation was also false. But the second equation is logically true, based on the assumption that the first equation is true. If, however, I said that based on the first equation it follows that 12-4=8 that would be logically false, even though factually true.

You can therefore see that something is logically false only if it contradicts its own assumptions.

Not if the way of thinking is a closed system. For example, if nobody ever brings up 12-4=8, you do not have the above problem.

This is your logical fallacy. You make statements about the nature of God, and then attribute behaviour/ thought/ reason/ action which contradict the initial statements.

No, unless you believe in putting words in my mouth, which I admit I can't do much against.

That isn't to say that God doesn't exist, just that your statements about his nature are self contradictory and therefore illogical.

Concisely demonstrate that point, instead of just saying it, thanks.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Zero
The concept of "God" that is generally posited by Christians is logically inconsistant with itself. For instance, saying that love cannot be coerced and "God" wouldn't do that, directly conflicts with the Biblical punishment and reward system.

Right, why should a Christian buy into the O.T. Biblical punishment and reward system? That is a theological explanation that is serviceable at some levels, but is discarded with the reality of Jesus.

That isn't to say that the system is completely out of order. It is a punishment (a self-punishment) to reject God, and a reward (a self-reward) to embrace God, but the choice is not made by God but by the individual. You place the decision completely on God, which is why you think there is a logical inconsistency.

-Elliot

Nyarlathotep

26th February 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

OK, I can see why you say that based on your antipathy against of the idea of divine intervention. You may not need that belief, but you do need others. In any case, you like all deists can not prove what you believe, so you do the best you can based on your own personal needs.

-Elliot

First of all I am not a deist. Like I said, deism has problems too, just a different set of them.

Secondly, I do not have "antipathy" toward divine intervention. I do not base my dieas of the world on what I want or do not want to be true. I base them on what can be observed and what the evidence supports. The existance of a God can not be observed nor is there any evidence to support God's existance. My desires have nothing to do with it.

Zero

26th February 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Right, why should a Christian buy into the O.T. Biblical punishment and reward system? That is a theological explanation that is serviceable at some levels, but is discarded with the reality of Jesus.

That isn't to say that the system is completely out of order. It is a punishment (a self-punishment) to reject God, and a reward (a self-reward) to embrace God, but the choice is not made by God but by the individual. You place the decision completely on God, which is why you think there is a logical inconsistency.

-Elliot The stakes are changed, but the system is still in place.

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Here's another example:

If "God" has a plan, and that plan has existed since the begining of time, then prayer and free will are incoherent notions.

Not if the plan includes other planners. You assume that a divine planner can not allow for other planners with imperfect planning ability, and there is no reason to make that assumption.

If "God" has scripted everything that will happen, in advance, then either a) prayer is ineffective, because "God" already knows what he is going to do, regardless of what we think of it, or b) we have no free will, because "God" has already included the prayer into his plan, which means that we had no choice but to make that prayer.

I allow that. If God has scripted, etc etc etc. But I do not believe God has scripted what imperfect individuals will do.

Does this mean that God is not in complete control? No. Imperfect creatures have limited potency, so God is not worried about all of this free will stuff to the level you are. To make allowances is evidence of a generous nature, and not a fearful or ineffectual nature.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Bullpussy!! An exception to a rule is a change to the rule. But, we'll take it again from the top, assuming your logic, because it doesn't change the dilemma: Why would "God" sacrifice himself to himself in order to [/i]create an exception to[/i] a rule he made himself?

State the rule please again? If I remember correctly, this is about free will? How does Jesus make an exception to the rule of free will? Or if that isn't the rule, please state it again, I admit something has been lost in the quoting sequence, at least to me.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Of course the Jesus story is similar to stories in other religions.-elliotfc

yeah, to similar. Ever hear of Mithra?

Yes, I am familiar with the Mithras deal, so much so that I know the essential point to the story is the dualistic eternal struggle between good and evil, which Christianity rejects. Mithraism was limited to men, primarily soldiers. Was started in Iran I think. The evil was embodied in a very large bull that Mithras would often wrestle with. Ahriman was the name of the bull. It was a very animalistic cult will many levels of initiation and physical tests. They believed in works and not grace/belief.

It seems you believe that Christianity co-opted Mithraism and made some necessary (because they are so different) alterations. In spite of this belief, you may want to check out this link.

http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/pub/soc.religion.christian/faq/mithra

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by wollery
[b]Woop Woop, logical fallacy alert, logical fallacy alert, woop woop.

And what's with the woop woops?

Your definition of God says that he knows everything and is perfect, and in the above statement you say that "He knew we would do it".

Yes, his knowledge is contingent on what our free will does.

If God knows beforehand what choices we make then those choices cannot be made differently.

Sure they could. They could be made differently and then God would know, beforehand, something different. God is outside of chronological time, except for when he inserts himself into chronological time, so I don't have a problem with any of this. His knowledge is a reality, and is contingent on the free will of his imperfect creations.

If they are made differently to the way God knows they will be then God doesn't know everything and is imperfect.

Sort of, not really. God knows everything when it is done, and since he is outside time that knowledge is eternal.

He knows what we will be for this reason, yet what we will be is entirely up to ourselves (within our limited potency of course) and not God.

If, on the other hand, they are made the way God knows they will be then the choices were preknown, which means that they must be predetermined, which means that we do not have free will.

See, you are equating preknown with direct causation, and that does not have to be the case. Why does it have to follow that pre-knowing something (and that pre knowledge only is because it is a realization of independent choices) means there is no free will?

Either God does not know what will happen or we do not have free will.

No. God does know what will happen because he knows everything. We have free will and can make our own choices. The problem here may be that God is outside of time. You are thinking of a person who is not equally present and all-knowing at all times. You are thinking of a schematic (maybe?) where everything is drawn up to plan, and then allowed to occur. Rather, things are allowed to occur under the volition of the created, and God is aware of all the results at all times because of his omniscience. That does not mean his omniscience caused anything. The fact of omniscience does not link it to being the force behind the imperfect decisions.

This implies that either God is imperfect or we are just programmed robots.

No, since I disagree with your suppositions I have to reject this statement as well.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

First of all I am not a deist. Like I said, deism has problems too, just a different set of them.

Right, the grammar does not bear that out, with an emphasis and a comma I could have been more clear, sorry. A rewording perhaps.

Secondly, I do not have "antipathy" toward divine intervention. I do not base my dieas of the world on what I want or do not want to be true. I base them on what can be observed and what the evidence supports. The existance of a God can not be observed nor is there any evidence to support God's existance. My desires have nothing to do with it.

You want to base your ideas on what can be observed, as do I. Evidence does not speak for itself, it has to be spoken for. No, the existence of a God can not be directly drawn from examining what he creates anymore than the existence of a painter can be drawn from the existence of a painting. The painting could easily have come about randomly, or, through the eternal forces of nature, or, by whatever ways you believe things come about. A bang, and then a chain reaction. I'm not sure what your beliefs are to be honest.

God's existence is accepted on many levels and for many reasons, obviously you reject all of them. Part faith, part authority, part observation, part intuitive thinking. You desire to think in a different way, so you do.

You define your own rules for accepting facts and interpreting reality, so in fact your desire has everything to do with it.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Zero
The stakes are changed, but the system is still in place.

Yes, mainly because reward/punishment makes order possible on earth, so it serves as an analogy to the divine, although of course the analogy only hints at the divine reality.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

First of all I am not a deist. Like I said, deism has problems too, just a different set of them.

Secondly, I do not have "antipathy" toward divine intervention. I do not base my dieas of the world on what I want or do not want to be true. I base them on what can be observed and what the evidence supports. The existance of a God can not be observed nor is there any evidence to support God's existance. My desires have nothing to do with it.

Of course you can't observe anything that happens in the past, so your desire comes into play with your explanations for past events.

-Elliot

Zero

26th February 2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

Yes, mainly because reward/punishment makes order possible on earth, so it serves as an analogy to the divine, although of course the analogy only hints at the divine reality.

-Elliot Assumptions not based on reality. "Order" doesn't exist anywhere, and what little that passes for order exists because of people, not fantasy creations.

Zero

26th February 2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

State the rule please again? If I remember correctly, this is about free will? How does Jesus make an exception to the rule of free will? Or if that isn't the rule, please state it again, I admit something has been lost in the quoting sequence, at least to me.

-Elliot Intentionally claiming ignorance...why? Doesn't it make you feel bad and dishonest?

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Assumptions not based on reality. "Order" doesn't exist anywhere, and what little that passes for order exists because of people, not fantasy creations.

I disagree with the opinion that order does not exist anywhere. Independent of human action, the earth spins on its axis once a day.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th February 2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Intentionally claiming ignorance...why? Doesn't it make you feel bad and dishonest?

Zero, I asked out of charity, I can't help it if you have the tendency to assume the worst in others. If you are too high and mighty to respond to an honest request, I'm sorry about that.

I won't be able to check this thread again til next week, but will look forward to reading anything constructive you have to offer.

If you read what I wrote, I posited something that I thought you may have been referring to. You chose, intentionally, not to respond what I put forward, and instead muse about my intent.

-Elliot

Ossai

27th February 2004, 10:56 AM

Elliotfc
Well they were told that they would die if they were to eat of the tree. Thus, the knowledge was attached to a result. The result is the opposite of life, so the result was evil. They (Adam and Eve) had no knowledge of death. Your statement is still invalid.

Yes, there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil but Adam and Eve already had an idea of good and evil based on what God told them. When and where did god tell them?

So what? What does that knowledge have to do with free will? Omniscience is incompatible with free will. One can exist but not both.

No. That is why I don't believe that a)God abandoned his children So what has he done for you lately?
and b)God tortures his children. Hell = torture.

And you keep mentioning abandonment when no Christian believes that, unless of course the individual desires that God abandons him/her. Catholics and most protestants believe exactly that, obey or die.

Jews, interested in theology, mused and we have the results. You've just negated the entire old testament and ,since Christian writings are heavily based on it, the new testament.

Well I view the gospels different from the O.T., even though they are in the same book. Why?
I cam content that the gospels are accurate accounts. Based on failed prophecies, non-existent prophecies, internal contradictions?

Ossai

elliotfc

2nd March 2004, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Ossai
Elliotfc
They (Adam and Eve) had no knowledge of death. Your statement is still invalid.

No, God told them (according to Genesis) that they would die if they ate from the tree, so they did know about death.

When and where did god tell them?

First you say that A&E had no knowlege of death...then you ask when/where God told them? Either read Genesis, or don't talk about A&E.

Omniscience is incompatible with free will. One can exist but not both.

That's an interesting dogma, but I disagree. God makes the rules and not you, if he desires that imperfect creatures have free will, that's his rule.

Are you unable to conceive the possibility that God knows everything and still allows free will? Why are they incompatible?

Do you link omniscience with causation? Why?

So what has he done for you lately?
Hell = torture.

Yes, it is torture to reject God, and God does not compel anyone to reject him. If you want to reject God, you'll be allowed, and such a choice is torturous.

Catholics and most protestants believe exactly that, obey or die.

Die as in a point where existence ceases?

Yes, at the end you really do have to stop rebelling against God and accept obedience to objective truth, that is a "life" choice, and the alternative is to choose "death".

You've just negated the entire old testament and ,since Christian writings are heavily based on it, the new testament.

No, the O.T. is diverse, I haven't negated all of it. Newton was wrong, does that mean Einstein is wrong too?

-Elliot

Zero

2nd March 2004, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I disagree with the opinion that order does not exist anywhere. Independent of human action, the earth spins on its axis once a day.

-Elliot Yeah, but not at the same speed every day...and it wobbles!!

elliotfc

2nd March 2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Yeah, but not at the same speed every day...and it wobbles!!

Well I don't have an Aristotlean ideal for the universe I guess. Does order, by definition, have to be "perfect"?

-Elliot

Acrimonious

2nd March 2004, 08:14 AM

How would they know right = good? How would they know wrong = evil?

By being obedient.

...

You make the assumption that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil!

You need to re-read your bible. It explicitly states they had no knowledge of good and evil.

And I quote from the KJB (King James Bible) Genesis:

002:025 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

003:001 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

003:002 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

003:003 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

003:004 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

003:005 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

003:006 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

003:007 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

God leaves them alone in Eden and says 'Don't eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You'll die. Cya later.'

The serpent says 'Ignore God. He's lying to you. You won't die. In fact, the knowledge of Good and Evil will make you as powerful as God.'

They eat the fruit, gain the knowledge of good and evil, realize being naked is "evil" and clothe themselves. God comes back, sees they're wearing fig leaves and throws a hissy fit.

They did not know the snake was evil. They did not know disobeying God was evil. They had no concept of good/evil or right/wrong UNTIL they had eaten the fruit.

Why am I teaching you your own dogma? Shouldn't you have read this for yourself? Or is this one of the "corrupted" portions of the Bible?

Johnny Pneumatic

2nd March 2004, 06:33 PM

On the Cross the Jesus of the Four Gospels, who was God, cried out " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" God cannot forsake himself, Jesus was God himself. Yet God forsook Jesus, and the latter cried out to know why he was forsaken. Any able divine will explain that of course he knew, and that he was not forsaken. The explanation renders it difficult to believe the dying cry, and the passage becomes one of the mysteries of the holy Christian religion, which, unless a man rightly believe, "without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
-- Charles B********

That cry could never be wrung from the lips of a man who saw in his own death a prearranged plan for the world's salvation, and his own return to divine glory temporarily renounced for transient misery on earth. The fictitious theology of a thousand years shrivels beneath the awful anguish of that cry.
-- Dr. C****y (My god, my god....)

Riddick

2nd March 2004, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious
They did not know the snake was evil. They did not know disobeying God was evil. They had no concept of good/evil or right/wrong UNTIL they had eaten the fruit.

Why am I teaching you your own dogma? Shouldn't you have read this for yourself? Or is this one of the "corrupted" portions of the Bible?
they knew that God told them not to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

now, unless god pulled a homer simpson and forgot to tell them what "do not eat of this tree of knowledge" actually meant. they may not have known evil --- but they did know they were not supposed to eat from that tree.

Acrimonious

3rd March 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Riddick

they knew that God told them not to eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

now, unless god pulled a homer simpson and forgot to tell them what "do not eat of this tree of knowledge" actually meant. they may not have known evil --- but they did know they were not supposed to eat from that tree.

You are completely ignoring the logic of the situation.

God creates Adam & Eve with no knowledge of Good and Evil.

God tells them 'Don't eat the fruit'

Having no knowledge of good and evil, they have no understanding that Obeying God = Good and Disobeying God = Evil.

Therefor, God telling them 'Don't eat the fruit' is absolutely moot. It conveys no meaning without the knowledge that disobeying God is wrong.

Johnny Pneumatic

3rd March 2004, 11:52 AM

Leibnitz and Newton both came up with the calculus separately. Morals are generally the same from religion to religion-elliotfc

Quite a difference between math, morals and mythology
If I went to another galaxy 4+4 still =8.

Your faith has been held throughout history-elliotfc

What is my faith?

God does not ask us to kiss his ass-elliotfc

The god of The B(the book you've never read) demands that we kiss "his" ass.

If God sees the result of his free will and makes it go away in the way you would have him do, can you see that God would be admitting that free will is in fact a bad idea, and thus you would have us believe in a God who is not omnipotent (capable of performing a bad act)?-elliotfc

If god could perform a bad act it is not perfect.
You keep talking about free will; where does The B talk about free will?

God wants you to live with him in paradise-Riddick

Then why didn't it put us in heaven in the first place?

To help get the word out, the good news, the plan of redemption-Riddick

So god is to stupid to think of writing it in neon letters in the sky?

I'm not sure if God did flood the earth.-elliotfc

The B says it did. You say The B is god's perfect word. You just called god a lier!

One theory is that the flood was to destroy the Nephilim, offspring of demons/humans who were wreaking unrelenting havoc on an overwhelmed humanity.-elliotfc

:roll:

Johnny Pneumatic

7th March 2004, 12:34 PM

Yes, it is torture to reject God-elliotfc

I've found the opposit to be true.

Nipples do serve a purpose. They are filled with nerves, and become erect during stress/cold/excitiation/stimulation.-elliotfc

Erect nipples serve what purpose?

I've wasted enough of my time on your credophilia.

elliotfc

7th March 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Yes, it is torture to reject God-elliotfc

I've found the opposit to be true.

Of course torture is subjective. Opinions change, as well. You may have a different opinion at some later time.

Nipples do serve a purpose. They are filled with nerves, and become erect during stress/cold/excitiation/stimulation.-elliotfc

Erect nipples serve what purpose?

The purpose of this discussion obvioulsy. Of course purpose is also a subjective term.

Again, since nipples become erect for specific reasons (involuntary) they are a visible sign, a tangible sign, that something is "up" (literally and figuratively). Purpose is the application of meaning to a fact, and you have to find meaning where you will.

I've wasted enough of my time on your credophilia.

OK, my advice to you is to beware your own personal dogmas, God knows you are doing the best you can and I'm sure things will work out fine for you. Be skeptical of your beliefs my axiomatically named friend. God, I sound a bit like Panhasiri, whatever happened to him?

-Elliot

elliotfc

7th March 2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious

You need to re-read your bible. It explicitly states they had no knowledge of good and evil.

And I quote from the KJB (King James Bible) Genesis:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious?

The quote you offered was uttered by the serpent!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I don't take the serpents words seriously, as you do.

But I'll try to follow you here...

God leaves them alone in Eden and says 'Don't eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You'll die. Cya later.'

No, I have no reason to accept this, no reason to believe that God did not say more to them, or speak with them, on a daily basis at the very least. You assume nothing else was communicated between God and A/E.

The serpent says 'Ignore God. He's lying to you. You won't die. In fact, the knowledge of Good and Evil will make you as powerful as God.'

Of course I can't take the serpent's words as seriously as the words of God.

They eat the fruit, gain the knowledge of good and evil, realize being naked is "evil" and clothe themselves. God comes back, sees they're wearing fig leaves and throws a hissy fit.

Of course man would have a negative attitude about God's reaction, which I wouldn't call a hissy fit, but whatever. It is an ironic encounter in which A&E are caught in a lie. I take the lesson from this, and I personally don't think it's a literal and exact portrayal of "what really happened", but it has an instructive meaning for me nonetheless.

They did not know the snake was evil. They did not know disobeying God was evil. They had no concept of good/evil or right/wrong UNTIL they had eaten the fruit.

No. Anything that says that God is a liar is evil. When a contradiction is met, you have a choice to choose one or the other. God's is by definition the good choice and the alternative is the evil choice. Do you agree that there were two perspectives offered to A&E, and they could choose one over the other? That duality is good and evil.

Why am I teaching you your own dogma? Shouldn't you have read this for yourself? Or is this one of the "corrupted" portions of the Bible?

You've only taught me that you are excellent at believing what you want to believe.

-Elliot

elliotfc

7th March 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
On the Cross the Jesus of the Four Gospels, who was God, cried out " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" God cannot forsake himself, Jesus was God himself. Yet God forsook Jesus, and the latter cried out to know why he was forsaken. Any able divine will explain that of course he knew, and that he was not forsaken. The explanation renders it difficult to believe the dying cry, and the passage becomes one of the mysteries of the holy Christian religion, which, unless a man rightly believe, "without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."
-- Charles B********

This quote "my God my God" is lifted from Psalm 22, and Jesus could very well have been praying this psalm on the cross.
http://members.aol.com/johnprh/forsaken.html

That cry could never be wrung from the lips of a man who saw in his own death a prearranged plan for the world's salvation, and his own return to divine glory temporarily renounced for transient misery on earth. The fictitious theology of a thousand years shrivels beneath the awful anguish of that cry.
-- Dr. C****y (My god, my god....)

Alternatively it could be a very human reaction to a situation, or, an understanding of how humans would react to a situation. I believe that it is not wrong for a human to have moments of despair, as long as they are overcome. Jesus demonstrated this on the Cross.

-Elliot

elliotfc

7th March 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious

You are completely ignoring the logic of the situation.

God creates Adam & Eve with no knowledge of Good and Evil.

Your opening statement is false, so I can't follow the way you see the logic of the situation. Where does it say that Adam & Eve were created with no knowledge of Good and Evil? Supply the reference so I can even attempt to follow your logic.

-Elliot

elliotfc

7th March 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
Quite a difference between math, morals and mythology
If I went to another galaxy 4+4 still =8.

If you went to a different galaxy, you would bring your morality with you as well. These is a difference between human behavior and mathematical ideals, yet in each case the results are compared to objective ideals.

Your faith has been held throughout history-elliotfc

What is my faith?

Skepticism.

God does not ask us to kiss his ass-elliotfc

The god of The B(the book you've never read) demands that we kiss "his" ass.

See, that's just it. I have read the Bible, yet you believe that I've never read the Bible. Since I have read the Bible, and I know that I have read the Bible, consider my perspective. Your faith is so juvenile and foolish, since you believe what I know is false.

Anyhow supply the scripture reference where the god of the Bible demands that we kiss his ass. I've read the Bible and I don't know what you are talking about.

If god could perform a bad act it is not perfect.

God is not perfect, or the bad act is not perfect?

I agree if you're talking about God. Anything God performs is by definition not a bad act (to me at least). Perfection is a standard you hold in your own mind and I suppose God doesn't meet your personal standard of perfection.

You keep talking about free will; where does The B talk about free will?

It's implied. For example, God did not force Adam/Eve to eat of the forbidden tree. That was an exercise in free will. I am not bothered that the Bible fails to mention several things that I believe. Why should I be limited by a book?

Then why didn't it put us in heaven in the first place?

I probably vary with Riddick here. Paradise, for us, will be specific to humanity. I believe creation will be re-made for humanity. We were, in fact, placed in our personal "heaven", so I don't see a conundrum here.

So god is to stupid to think of writing it in neon letters in the sky?

No, but you may be too stupid to desire such magical activity from God. Obviously God choose to communicate with humans in different ways, and I don't think it will damn you if you fail to get the message on earth.

The B says it did. You say The B is god's perfect word. You just called god a lier!

First, I've never said the Bible is "god's perfect word", but again, I can't help what you believe, you seem to believe whatever you want.

Second, the Bible is a book written by humans that details the evolving relationship/understanding of God. Since I accept that to be the case, I view the Bible to be "perfect" in that respect.

-Elliot

Johnny Pneumatic

7th March 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

This quote "my God my God" is lifted from Psalm 22, and Jesus could very well have been praying this psalm on the cross.-Elliot

why would god pray? why would jesus say that? why can't you
admit you're wrong?

Johnny Pneumatic

7th March 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc
No, but you may be too stupid to desire such magical activity from God.-Elliot

Wanting proof of something before believing is stupid?
How about jesus's magic?

elliotfc

7th March 2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas

why would god pray? why would jesus say that? why can't you
admit you're wrong?

Teachers do things for others that they already know how to do, or don't need to do. I teach piano/violin, I teach songs that I really don't need to play because they are very simple, yet I do it for the sake of my students.

Psalm 22, like much of the O.T., suggests an image that is fulfilled in Jesus, so it isn't a stretch to me that he would evoke Psalm 22 on the cross. Have you ever read Psalm 22?

bewareofdogmas you desire to put words into my mouth, and obviously I have no reason to submit myself to that desire. I don't believe what you want me to believe, and I obviously don't have the same hang-ups and needs that you have. According to your standards (which I suspect our faulty), I suppose I am wrong. I can't help your prejudices.

-Elliot

elliotfc

7th March 2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas

Wanting proof of something before believing is stupid?
How about jesus's magic?

I take it on authority, and I trust that the things happened. Listen, I don't think you're stupid if you reject the N.T., I didn't mean it that way, I suppose I was just a bit irritated that you would call God stupid.

You have your standards and you have to use them to make decisions, and I don't think you're a bad person for that, not that you care what I think about you or anything. In the end you'll either know for certain about all this stuff, or it won't matter at all.

-Elliot

Christian

7th March 2004, 04:39 PM

bewareofdogmas wrote:
Riddick or Christian I have a few questions I'd like you to answer.

So sorry to come so late into this thread.

If God is all-powerful, why did he take 6 days to create the universe, resting on the 7th? Why didn't he just snap his proverbial fingers and create everything all at once, and not need rest afterwards? Doesn't sound so all-powerful to me.

Because He wanted us to learn a very important lesson, a lesson he repeats in Ecclesiastes with much accentuation.

Everything has a cycle. Understanding the principle is one of the most important things to learn be us humans.

Why does this wonderful, forgiving God hold Adam's sin over all our heads? Why must we all pay for this by being permanent sinners? If God was so pissed, why didn't he just kill Adam and Eve and start over?

Because He didn't want to. Because He is God.

Yes, we have free will, but God already knows who will sin, who will accept Him, etc, for all eternity (since he has perfect knowledge of the future). Why then, are we here? Why not just send our souls to Heaven or Hell, depending on what he knows we'll do?

Because, in his mercy, He wanted us to experience life, all of it. He wanted us to experience life as we know it, with its joys and sorrows and with the ability to choose.

Where did God come from? How did he get created? Why is it a valid argument to say that He "always existed", but an invalid argument to say the same thing about matter and energy?

This is a question I can't answer. It is the same qualitatively question possed to materialists-athests: What was before the Big-Bang, very the expanding of the universe, what was there? Can you answer that?

Acrimonious

9th March 2004, 09:18 AM

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you serious?

The quote you offered was uttered by the serpent!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I don't take the serpents words seriously, as you do.
I'm paraphrasing this again, because you still don't get it:

God says "Eat anything in eden. Except the fruit from the tree of THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL! Eating that fruit will kill you."

The Serpent says "Eat the fruit. It won't kill you. It'll give you KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL! That will make you like God."

God told them:
1) Half-Truth: If they ate the fruit, they would die. He didn't mention that the fruit itself was ripe and good to eat, and that HE was the one who would allow them to die, not that the fruit itself would poison/kill them.

The Serpent told them:
1) Half-truth: The fruit wouldn't kill them. God would change them to allow them to die.
2) TRUTH: The fruit from the tree of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL would impart KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL (amazingly enough).
3) TRUTH: The knowledge of good and evil will make them more like God (As God had the knowledge of good and evil).

Eve goes to the tree and looks at the fruit. It looks ripe and good to eat. Not knowing that the Serpent is evil, she concludes that the fruit couldn't possibly kill her.

Here's the hummer you keep ignoring: If Adam and Eve ALREADY HAD the Knowledge of Good and Evil like you believe, HOW could the serpent's statements possibly ever pursuade them? If they ALREADY KNEW God was good and the Serpent was evil, WHY WOULD THEY EVER DISOBEY GOD?

Were they morons? Is it your theistic belief that Adam and Eve were imbeciles? Is that really what original sin is? Stupidity?

The crux of my argument is as follows:

If they were created with no knowledge of good and evil, how can you blame them for a mistake in a situation where they can only make the right choice if they were created with the knowledge of good and evil?

And, similarly, using your take on the parable:

If they were created as morons, how can you blame them for a mistake in a situation where they can only make the right choice if they weren't created as morons?

Johnny Pneumatic

9th March 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Christian This is a question I can't answer. It is the same qualitatively question possed to materialists-athests: What was before the Big-Bang, very the expanding of the universe, what was there? Can you answer that? [/B]

If the standard Big Bang is correct there was no "before". No matter, energy, time etc.

Christian

9th March 2004, 03:08 PM

If the standard Big Bang is correct there was no "before". No matter, energy, time etc.

Nope.

If the standard Big Bang ocurred, no one knows what was before. Even the term before loses meaning.

Johnny Pneumatic

10th March 2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc

I take it on authority, and I trust that the things happened.-Elliot

Why? why don't you trust that Zeus is the cause of lightning, that Hercules(sp.?) could lift temples over his head?

Because He didn't want to. Because He is God.-Christian

Wonderful, I have a answer:rolleyes:

Johnny Pneumatic

12th March 2004, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc
supply the scripture reference where the god of the Bible demands that we kiss his ass. I've read the Bible and I don't know what you are talking about.-Elliot

read Leviticus

Originally posted by elliotfc
It's implied. For example, God did not force Adam/Eve to eat of the forbidden tree. That was an exercise in free will. I am not bothered that the Bible fails to mention several things that I believe. Why should I be limited by a book?

-Elliot

god must have forgoten about free will here--> Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Riddick

12th March 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by bewareofdogmas
god must have forgoten about free will here--> Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
i wonder if that was payback by god. it wasn't too long before that that moses had to be floated near the rivers edge, because, i forget specifically, it was either the firstborn, or the new baby boys, or all those under 2 years were ordered slayed by the pharoh. something like that anyway.

Johnny Pneumatic

12th March 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Riddick

i wonder if that was payback by god. it wasn't too long before that that moses had to be floated near the rivers edge, because, i forget specifically, it was either the firstborn, or the new baby boys, or all those under 2 years were ordered slayed by the pharoh. something like that anyway.

irrelevent; god forced him. god did not respect his free will.

Johnny Pneumatic

12th March 2004, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by elliotfc
Skepticism.-Elliot

skep·ti·cism
n.
A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.
Philosophy.
The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

faith
n.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Skepticism could be no further from faith.:teacher:

Johnny Pneumatic

18th March 2004, 04:20 PM

It would have been enough for Jesus to die of natural causes.-elliotfc

Then why didn't god tell Adam and Eve to not have sex?
So that jesus could have a virgin birth, live and die of old age.

elliotfc

21st March 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Acrimonious

I'm paraphrasing this again, because you still don't get it:

God says "Eat anything in eden. Except the fruit from the tree of THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL! Eating that fruit will kill you."

The Serpent says "Eat the fruit. It won't kill you. It'll give you KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL! That will make you like God."

God told them:
1) Half-Truth: If they ate the fruit, they would die. He didn't mention that the fruit itself was ripe and good to eat, and that HE was the one who would allow them to die, not that the fruit itself would poison/kill them.

Whoa whoa whoa were how do you make all of those assumptions exactly?

He made an EXACTLY true statement. He said that IF they ate of the fruit, THEN they would die. That statement was true.

All poisonous plants are ripe and good to eat until they KILL YOU.

Yes, God allows us to die, he allows us to suffer from disobedience, no Christian would disagree with you on that.

How do you know that it wasn't the fruit that killed them? Even if you're right, I agree that the main point is that disobedience is death, but I have no reason to concede that it wasn't the fruit that killed them.

KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL would impart KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL (amazingly enough).
3) TRUTH: The knowledge of good and evil will make them more like God (As God had the knowledge of good and evil).[/B]

I'm not terribly interested in analyzing the veracity of the statements of a liar.

All that matters to me on this is that the serpent encouraged disobedience; I could really care less about the logic of that type of creature.

Here's the hummer you keep ignoring: If Adam and Eve ALREADY HAD the Knowledge of Good and Evil like you believe, HOW could the serpent's statements possibly ever pursuade them? If they ALREADY KNEW God was good and the Serpent was evil, WHY WOULD THEY EVER DISOBEY GOD?

Because they had free will.

If you tell someone than heroin is bad, why would anyone use heroin?

Man, with your way of thinking you must be flummoxed about the behavior of every human in existence. Why is McDonald's in business? Why do people smoke?

Were they morons? Is it your theistic belief that Adam and Eve were imbeciles? Is that really what original sin is? Stupidity?

No, j ust disobedience and pride. Adam and Eve thought that their decisions were superior to the objective commands of God. That's the issue. Are you unable to appreciate that perspective? It's up to you whether or not you accept that persepctive, but surely you can grasp the reality that the perspective you are trying so hard to make me correspond to is not the only way of looking at it.

Just for a bit of interplay, how about you consider my perspective as I have considered (and dismantled) yours.

If they were created with no knowledge of good and evil, how can you blame them for a mistake in a situation where they can only make the right choice if they were created with the knowledge of good and evil?

You are assuming that they had no knowledge of good and evil. I have no reason to make that assumption. God gave them a command, and told them of a repercussion for disobeying the command. God gave them knowledge, and all knowledge given by God is necessarily good knowledge. I'm not even too worked up about the blame game. In fact I am a bit partial to Adam and Eve as I guess they are greatgreatgreattothewhateverpower parents of mine. I have redemption in Jesus and am content with that; without hope of redemption I may be very bitter and eager to blame, but then again maybe not. I don't know.

If they were created as morons, how can you blame them for a mistake in a situation where they can only make the right choice if they weren't created as morons?

Right, now you're trying to put words in my mouth. I've never used the word moron, but you impose that word choice on me. Show a bit of respect and take my words for what they are, not for your distorted recasting.

-Elliot