question about christianity! [Archive]

jdees

01-23-08, 04:31 PM

ashura

01-23-08, 04:50 PM

spidergoat

01-23-08, 04:54 PM

The answer is that one particular flavor of monotheism, the one that became popular, was a fairly recent human invention. For the first several hundred thousand years that humans were on this planet, there was no civilization due to lack of systematic agriculture of grains. We were wandering around, looking for food. This means there was no unified religion that we know about. You have to ask yourself, why didn't God reveal himself to humans sooner? Why did God wait through 3 billion years of life on this planet to create humans? I think the answer is obvious, there is no God.

Myles

01-23-08, 05:23 PM

How about money ? "In God we trust". Everyone else needs a cash or a credit card

lightgigantic

01-23-08, 05:30 PM

You have to ask yourself, why didn't God reveal himself to humans sooner?
If god is eternal and the living entity is eternal, why is a length of linear time deemed a logical violation?

jdees

01-23-08, 05:35 PM

Ok here we are trying to dismess christianity. I have interpreted your answers although none of optimism towards christianity I understand your points of different or no belief's although trying to convince me there is no god is pretty much impossible because of my past experiences. Call me delusional.... call me anything I dont mind I would only like someone more scripturally educated to help me understand my own questions that are definitly answerable maybe not threw direct physical evidence but surely there is a answer.

spidergoat

01-23-08, 06:09 PM

If god is eternal and the living entity is eternal, why is a length of linear time deemed a logical violation?

It reveals that humans were not his priority. Why go to all the trouble of creating all those animals that just went extinct? Why create humans only to reveal your existence to a small group of illiterate bronze-age goat-herders?

ashura

01-23-08, 06:13 PM

Here you will only receive wrathful accusations of dishonesty to heartfelt condolences for being blind to the truth (the "truth" being that there is - apparently - no god)

Actually, I tried to offer him what I thought would be a perfectly acceptable philosophical answer to a theist. He chose, however, to ignore my question to him for some reason.

lightgigantic

01-23-08, 06:20 PM

It reveals that humans were not his priority. Why go to all the trouble of creating all those animals that just went extinct? Why create humans only to reveal your existence to a small group of illiterate bronze-age goat-herders?
Not sure if I understand you.

If the pursuit of religiosity is the ultimate function of the material manifestation, and if humans are the only religiously inclined species on the planet, what is the point of taking birth in the animal species?

losfomoT

01-23-08, 06:26 PM

I would only like someone more scripturally educated to help me understand my own questions that are definitly answerable maybe not threw direct physical evidence but surely there is a answer.

So you are asking someone to give you some (any) interpretation that explains the inconsistencies that you are reading about in the bible? I can make something up for you if you like... or how about this cure all:

God works in mysterious ways.

or how about:

It is not our business to try to justify the moves that the Almighty Lord makes.

or even:

God can do whatever he wants.... he's GOD!

spidergoat

01-23-08, 06:28 PM

lightgigantic

01-23-08, 07:00 PM

What is the point of 4 billion years of non-human life, many of which were simply wiped out by various catastrophes?
if the living entity is eternal and accepts different designations of existence in various species to facilitate their material desires, why is non-human life valueless?

Why wouldn't he wait to reveal himself until there was a worldwide communications system? It's only 0.00005% more time.gawd!
and how much of the www is dedicated to the pursuit of scriptural/religious understanding?
Worldwide communications may have brought us many things, but freedom from distraction and quality time is not one of them

spidergoat

01-23-08, 07:41 PM

I'm not saying it's valueless, it just doesn't make any sense if, like the Bible says, the Earth was created for us.

Cyperium

01-23-08, 08:07 PM

Ok here is my main question that would answer alot of things for me. First off, why did It take so long for god to figure out that everyone would sin and the punishment for sin is death.Because the sins would reach it's full measure (freely translated).

If god is of justice and perfect why did it take him so many (years) to sacrifice his son jesus for our sins, all those people who died, died as a sinner and went to hell between the period of no savior. Although they were sinners and god knew this yet did nothing about it till many were in hell. Is that justice?Actually, I don't think no one has gone to hell yet. At the end time, there will be a "cliff" between heaven and hell, so that no one from heaven can go into hell, and no one from hell can go into heaven.

And the ones that are in hell wouldn't believe even if Moses manifested himself before him from the dead.

It also confuses me about years im not sure physically how a human could live up to 969 years like Methuselah. Possibly since 40 days is mentioned alot threwout the holy bible it means a year is 40 days in the bible? and that would be more physically possible being he would be around 100 years or so. Im not sure really but a few verses from the bible i could research would be nice.Well, who knows, I don't understand how a human can live a hundred years, perhaps people just lived longer, or perhaps there are some mystery to it.

Myles

01-23-08, 08:23 PM

What is the point of 4 billion years of non-human life, many of which were simply wiped out by various catastrophes? Why wouldn't he wait to reveal himself until there was a worldwide communications system? It's only 0.00005% more time.

It's even worse than that. He was so impatient that he cocked the first effort up. Then he sent a deluge to wipe everything out so he could start again.

spidergoat

01-23-08, 10:22 PM

He's quite the experimenter, isn't he? I wonder if He creates new strains of the AIDS virus too?

lightgigantic

01-24-08, 01:15 AM

It's even worse than that. He was so impatient that he cocked the first effort up. Then he sent a deluge to wipe everything out so he could start again.

He's quite the experimenter, isn't he? I wonder if He creates new strains of the AIDS virus too?

Once again, if the living entity is eternal, what are the logical violations of mortality?

Myles

01-24-08, 05:06 AM

Once again, if the living entity is eternal, what are the logical violations of mortality?

There you go, If, if, if, if......

If my aunt had balls , she'd be my uncle

Myles

01-24-08, 05:15 AM

He's quite the experimenter, isn't he? I wonder if He creates new strains of the AIDS virus too?

You've touched on something interesting. When there was a scare in the US that avian flu might " jump" to humans, Bush asked scientists to come up with a vaccine.

The joke is that he was unwittingly accepting that mutations occur. There wasn't a peep out of the ID crowd who should have spoken out against the possibility of a new strain because god hadn't created it.

I think it gives us an insight into the mindset of those who reject evolution. They don't understand what it's about because they won't read "ungodly" books. Blessed are the blinkered.

lightgigantic

01-24-08, 05:58 AM

There you go, If, if, if, if......
well it was a logical rebuttal of a logical argument

If my aunt had balls , she'd be my uncle
maybe you should discuss this with your aunty

Saquist

01-24-08, 06:00 AM

Ok here is my main question that would answer alot of things for me. First off, why did It take so long for god to figure out that everyone would sin and the punishment for sin is death. If god is of justice and perfect why did it take him so many (years) to sacrifice his son jesus for our sins, all those people who died, died as a sinner and went to hell between the period of no savior. Although they were sinners and god knew this yet did nothing about it till many were in hell. Is that justice? It also confuses me about years im not sure physically how a human could live up to 969 years like Methuselah. Possibly since 40 days is mentioned alot threwout the holy bible it means a year is 40 days in the bible? and that would be more physically possible being he would be around 100 years or so. Im not sure really but a few verses from the bible i could research would be nice. Im a strong believer in christ as my savior and in god and the holy spirit. A answer to these questions would furthur my walk with god even more. Thank you and god bless
-John D.

Your question is essentialy, "Why did God wait to provide the sacrifice.?"
The question is related to "why so many suffer and die" and "does God really care?"

How it Happened
The answer is because the angel we now know as Satan started a Rebellion. Humans tend to be a bit self centered. But the issue actually started in Heaven not on Earth. If you recall Satan drew with down with him "a third of the stars." or angels. Man was drawn into this dispute when the angel now known as Satan persuaded Eve to take what didn't belong to her and accused God of holding back knowledge.

A Fair Hearing
There were still faithful angels not to mention the Son of God watching these events. No doubt they are intrested in the accusations and the out come. With this in mind instead of destroying the rebels, we aswell as Satan were allowed to prove our case. God has also been using the history that followed to prove his case aswell. As we saw in Job man is capable of being faithful even under the influence of sin.

The Purpose of Israel
As soon as man sinned God created the need for the Messiah at Gen 3:15 To preserve true worship on Earth despite the wickedness that would come he would establish a nation through one man and bring the seed that would correct sin through that seed. Jesus was that seed and he confirmed that the "weeds would be allowed to grow with wheat". to avoid damaging the innocent.

Between Sin and Israel
The problem that had to be corrected was the Angels that took man's form and began breeding. Creating the superhumans. Some people believed these to be Hercules and the legends that proliferated Europe. The Demons had to cut off and the hybrids had to be destroyed. They were an introduction of genetic material to the human genome that was never meant to be.

This is from the understanding I had been taught. I hope it helps

Yorda

01-24-08, 11:25 AM

we can't say that god doesn't exist because most of us don't even know what god is.

It also confuses me about years im not sure physically how a human could live up to 969 years like Methuselah.

if you are connected to god you can live much longer. god is life, like a tree, and if a fruit would not fall from the lifetree, it could live much longer. but many of the people in the bible do not necessarily refer to real physical humans.

Possibly since 40 days is mentioned alot threwout the holy bible it means a year is 40 days in the bible?

the number 40 represents eternity in the bible, and eternity in that case means an undefined seemingly endless time interval.

SnakeLord

01-24-08, 12:14 PM

The answer is because the angel we now know as Satan started a Rebellion. Humans tend to be a bit self centered. But the issue actually started in Heaven not on Earth. If you recall Satan drew with down with him "a third of the stars." or angels. Man was drawn into this dispute when the angel now known as Satan persuaded Eve to take what didn't belong to her and accused God of holding back knowledge.

1) As an employer that has a third of all your staff walk out on you, would the most apparent reason be that they're all assholes or that you are?

2) god was holding back knowledge, (knowledge of good and evil). You can hardly contest that. Before the snakes intervention Adam and Eve were even oblivious to their own nudity. That is how this god wanted people; pig ignorant.. Is that something to be commended or do we owe the snake some thanks?

There were still faithful angels not to mention the Son of God watching these events. No doubt they are intrested in the accusations and the out come. With this in mind instead of destroying the rebels, we aswell as Satan were allowed to prove our case. God has also been using the history that followed to prove his case aswell. As we saw in Job man is capable of being faithful even under the influence of sin.

A 'hearing' becomes meaningless to an omniscient being. He already knows the outcome. As a result he would have known that many people would become possessed by the 'demons' and led into doing things/believing things/watching Pokemon completely against their will. It's one thing to leave someone with freedom until they commit a crime, it's another thing altogether to let them commit it when you know they're going to.

The Purpose of Israel
As soon as man sinned God created the need for the Messiah at Gen 3:15 To preserve true worship on Earth despite the wickedness that would come he would establish a nation through one man and bring the seed that would correct sin through that seed. Jesus was that seed and he confirmed that the "weeds would be allowed to grow with wheat". to avoid damaging the innocent.

1) What was jesus job before man sinned?

2) Gen 3:15 merely states that people will go around squashing snakes with their heels. It is based upon the story of Marduk who crushed Tiamats head with his heel when he slayed her, but origins aside I don't see anything there that suggests a messiah or to preserve true worship.

The problem that had to be corrected was the Angels that took man's form and began breeding. Creating the superhumans. Some people believed these to be Hercules and the legends that proliferated Europe. The Demons had to cut off and the hybrids had to be destroyed. They were an introduction of genetic material to the human genome that was never meant to be.

1) Now you're just being plain silly. gods employees came down out of heaven and had sex with humans which led to superhumans and demon hybrids that needed to be destroyed... :bugeye: Watch the X Files much?

2) If it was never meant to be why did it happen? This god of yours was powerless to stop demons bonking humans?

Pitiful.

SkinWalker

01-24-08, 12:22 PM

It is, indeed, a fanciful speculation.

Saquist

01-24-08, 12:50 PM

1) As an employer that has a third of all your staff walk out on you, would the most apparent reason be that they're all assholes or that you are?

ah but if that were true then why have the fair hearing?

2) god was holding back knowledge, (knowledge of good and evil). You can hardly contest that. Before the snakes intervention Adam and Eve were even oblivious to their own nudity. That is how this god wanted people; pig ignorant.. Is that something to be commended or do we owe the snake some thanks?

That's why it's called deciet.
Are you saying we're better off knowing bad?

A 'hearing' becomes meaningless to an omniscient being. He already knows the outcome. As a result he would have known that many people would become possessed by the 'demons' and led into doing things/believing things/watching Pokemon completely against their will. It's one thing to leave someone with freedom until they commit a crime, it's another thing altogether to let them commit it when you know they're going to.

Yes he does know the outcome. But even then it's not meaningless to him. He sees the import of everyone witnessing the results themselves. With absolute power God has the will and ability to correct it all in a similar manner as was done to Job.

1) What was jesus job before man sinned?
According to the Bible, the word.

2) Gen 3:15 merely states that people will go around squashing snakes with their heels. It is based upon the story of Marduk who crushed Tiamats head with his heel when he slayed her, but origins aside I don't see anything there that suggests a messiah or to preserve true worship.

Yes, you've chosen the secular view. The secular view takes no account of the metaphor being used. In biblical prophesy the bible uses the symbol of "the woman" and "seed" in accordance with government and to Jesus as coming through that "seed"

1) Now you're just being plain silly. gods employees came down out of heaven and had sex with humans which led to superhumans and demon hybrids that needed to be destroyed... :bugeye: Watch the X Files much?

2) If it was never meant to be why did it happen? This god of yours was powerless to stop demons bonking humans?

Pitiful.

Part of free will is the freedom to make the mistake. However since we're dealing with perfect creatures that for sook there propper place they too had made their choice. If a fair hearing then these angels actions spoke for themselves. If it was an issue of power then their destruction would have been simple but it would not have provided much of a testimony.

Myles

01-24-08, 12:52 PM

1) As an employer that has a third of all your staff walk out on you, would the most apparent reason be that they're all assholes or that you are?

2) god was holding back knowledge, (knowledge of good and evil). You can hardly contest that. Before the snakes intervention Adam and Eve were even oblivious to their own nudity. That is how this god wanted people; pig ignorant.. Is that something to be commended or do we owe the snake some thanks?

A 'hearing' becomes meaningless to an omniscient being. He already knows the outcome. As a result he would have known that many people would become possessed by the 'demons' and led into doing things/believing things/watching Pokemon completely against their will. It's one thing to leave someone with freedom until they commit a crime, it's another thing altogether to let them commit it when you know they're going to.

1) What was jesus job before man sinned?

2) Gen 3:15 merely states that people will go around squashing snakes with their heels. It is based upon the story of Marduk who crushed Tiamats head with his heel when he slayed her, but origins aside I don't see anything there that suggests a messiah or to preserve true worship.

1) Now you're just being plain silly. gods employees came down out of heaven and had sex with humans which led to superhumans and demon hybrids that needed to be destroyed... :bugeye: Watch the X Files much?

2) If it was never meant to be why did it happen? This god of yours was powerless to stop demons bonking humans?

Pitiful.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an intelligent response

Myles

01-24-08, 12:59 PM

Your question is essentialy, "Why did God wait to provide the sacrifice.?"
The question is related to "why so many suffer and die" and "does God really care?"

How it Happened
The answer is because the angel we now know as Satan started a Rebellion. Humans tend to be a bit self centered. But the issue actually started in Heaven not on Earth. If you recall Satan drew with down with him "a third of the stars." or angels. Man was drawn into this dispute when the angel now known as Satan persuaded Eve to take what didn't belong to her and accused God of holding back knowledge.

A Fair Hearing
There were still faithful angels not to mention the Son of God watching these events. No doubt they are intrested in the accusations and the out come. With this in mind instead of destroying the rebels, we aswell as Satan were allowed to prove our case. God has also been using the history that followed to prove his case aswell. As we saw in Job man is capable of being faithful even under the influence of sin.

The Purpose of Israel
As soon as man sinned God created the need for the Messiah at Gen 3:15 To preserve true worship on Earth despite the wickedness that would come he would establish a nation through one man and bring the seed that would correct sin through that seed. Jesus was that seed and he confirmed that the "weeds would be allowed to grow with wheat". to avoid damaging the innocent.

Between Sin and Israel
The problem that had to be corrected was the Angels that took man's form and began breeding. Creating the superhumans. Some people believed these to be Hercules and the legends that proliferated Europe. The Demons had to cut off and the hybrids had to be destroyed. They were an introduction of genetic material to the human genome that was never meant to be.

This is from the understanding I had been taught. I hope it helps

You get funnier with each utterance you make. How did you get so mixed up. You reject science in one breath and refer to genetic material in the next. No doubt there is something in the Bible which, if properly understood, explains all about. genetics. Why doesn't it mention evolution ?

I won't embarrass you by asking why god made creature he knew would rebel and bring sin into the world. I conjecture that he needed more fuel for his lake of fire

Saquist

01-24-08, 01:22 PM

That's what free will allows. The ability to choose a wrong or right path. Machines and computers come preprogramed but they don't have free will.

losfomoT

01-24-08, 01:35 PM

That's why it's called deciet.
Are you saying we're better off knowing bad?

Of course we are.

And the whole concept of not knowing the difference between good and evil does not make sense. If we were completely oblivious to good and evil, right and wrong, then we certainly can't be blamed for disobeying God, and eating the fruit of the tree he told us not to. We didn't know any better... at least not until after we ate the fruit.

Saquist

01-24-08, 01:46 PM

nova900

01-24-08, 01:58 PM

They already knew Good. This was before sin entered the world. What they didn't know was bad. And after all Eve was told not to eat from the tree. Don't you agree that following instructions could save your life?

Where in genesis does it state they know good?
If they didn't know "bad" then they obviously could not separate the two concepts and know good was good. Nor could they know God was good.

losfomoT

01-24-08, 02:09 PM

Where in genesis does it state they know good?
If they didn't know "bad" then they obviously could not separate the two concepts and know good was good. Nor could they know God was good.

I agree.

And after all Eve was told not to eat from the tree. Don't you agree that following instructions could save your life?

You are assuming that they had a concept of 'death' and that that concept was of a 'bad' thing.

SnakeLord

01-24-08, 03:31 PM

ah but if that were true then why have the fair hearing?

It's actually quite ingenious. It's called shifting focus. While people like you go about blaming everything on the devil, god is free to continue annihilating whomever he sees fit.

While you were busy blaming demons, god cursed men and snakes, drowned every human on the planet, turned peoples wives to salt, murdered Egyptian children, closed womens wombs, caused plague after plague after plague and so on and so forth. The list is endless.

"The greatest trick god ever pulled was convincing the world the devil did it all. And poof... Just like that, he gets away with mass genocide".

That's why it's called deciet.

Everything the snake said was true, thus it was not deceit.

Are you saying we're better off knowing bad?

Absolutely. Without it you'd probably be best buddies with the devil and not even realise the problem with that... (Oops).

But even then it's not meaningless to him. He sees the import of everyone witnessing the results themselves.

Does that also include the victim?

According to the Bible, the word.

Which word, and in which language?

Yes, you've chosen the secular view.

The short form of: "Yes, you've chosen to not read imaginary meanings into straight forward sentences."

The secular view takes no account of the metaphor being used.

As is always the case with you fundies, when something is a distinct problem it ceases to be real or direct and becomes one of hidden invisible alter-meaning that is simply made up by you on the spot.

Part of free will is the freedom to make the mistake.

The 2 year old victim had the free will of getting raped and then diced into small cubes?

However, this is all based upon a "mistake" by 2 people, not the 6 billion of us that had no choice but to be born with sin nor every other person that has ever lived since the "mistake" of those two people, a "mistake" that was made specifically because they had no knowledge of good or evil.

Adam could have happily urinated in gods face and been none the wiser. He could have beaten Eve to a pulp and then had kinky butt sex with a t-rex and not understood what was bad about doing so.

They already knew Good. This was before sin entered the world. What they didn't know was bad.

Even if that were the case, (god disagrees with you), it would still leave a seriously distinct problem.

Yes, it is good to follow instructions. Is it bad to do the opposite?

Saquist

01-24-08, 04:54 PM

It's actually quite ingenious. It's called shifting focus. While people like you go about blaming everything on the devil, god is free to continue annihilating whomever he sees fit.

While you were busy blaming demons, god cursed men and snakes, drowned every human on the planet, turned peoples wives to salt, murdered Egyptian children, closed womens wombs, caused plague after plague after plague and so on and so forth. The list is endless.

So you have your own perspective most people often do.
I was speaking of the biblical view.

"The greatest trick god ever pulled was convincing the world the devil did it all. And poof... Just like that, he gets away with mass genocide".

I thought you didn't believe in God.

Everything the snake said was true, thus it was not deceit.
He said you "positively will not die". Considering that they did Indeed Die as a result wouldn't you call that deciet?

Absolutely. Without it you'd probably be best buddies with the devil and not even realise the problem with that... (Oops).

I don't understand.

Does that also include the victim?

Yes it does.

Which word, and in which language?
Perhaps if your intrest is so strong you might look it up and let me know.

The short form of: "Yes, you've chosen to not read imaginary meanings into straight forward sentences."

1 Tim 1:13 Keep beholding the pattern of healthful words...

As is always the case with you fundies, when something is a distinct problem it ceases to be real or direct and becomes one of hidden invisible alter-meaning that is simply made up by you on the spot.

Or it's understood that all prophesies in the bible are conveyed by metaphor and symbolism but you'd have to read and study to have that understanding.

The 2 year old victim had the free will of getting raped and then diced into small cubes?

Ah that is persecution. The rapist did have Free will. He did choose to do wrong. The child had free will aswell but obviously this did not lead to the mistake. I'm sure you knew that.

However, this is all based upon a "mistake" by 2 people, not the 6 billion of us that had no choice but to be born with sin nor every other person that has ever lived since the "mistake" of those two people, a "mistake" that was made specifically because they had no knowledge of good or evil.

And that's why we've been allowed to live. It wasn't our fault our original parents made a mistake that indangered us but we're living the consequences.

Even if that were the case, (god disagrees with you), it would still leave a seriously distinct problem.
A perculiar statement.

Yes, it is good to follow instructions. Is it bad to do the opposite?
If it leads to your death then I would have to classify that as bad wouldn't you?

Saquist

01-24-08, 05:02 PM

I agree.

You are assuming that they had a concept of 'death' and that that concept was of a 'bad' thing.

The original pair had communication with God. As the gospels and the lengthy processes of the High Priest showed we don't have that benefit today. But they could have asked anything the wanted and seeing as they were inhabiting a Garden they would have been familar with what death means which is the discontinuation of life-decomposing.

Myles

01-24-08, 05:12 PM

That's what free will allows. The ability to choose a wrong or right path. Machines and computers come preprogramed but they don't have free will.

Free will is a delusion

Myles

01-24-08, 05:22 PM

The original pair had communication with God. As the gospels and the lengthy processes of the High Priest showed we don't have that benefit today. But they could have asked anything the wanted and seeing as they were inhabiting a Garden they would have been familar with what death means which is the discontinuation of life-decomposing.

So god gave us the free will to call up earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes and all other natural disasters. I am not mentiong small children dying of hunger in the Third World because I know you'll blame it on man's sinfullness.

Looking at the whole picture. the sort of god you believe in would be a sadistic bastard.

losfomoT

01-24-08, 05:37 PM

If it leads to your death then I would have to classify that as bad wouldn't you?

The point is, how would they know that, they have no knowledge of Good and Bad.

The original pair had communication with God. As the gospels and the lengthy processes of the High Priest showed we don't have that benefit today. But they could have asked anything the wanted and seeing as they were inhabiting a Garden they would have been familar with what death means which is the discontinuation of life-decomposing.

This does not tell them that death is bad. The 'discontinuation of life' on Earth, does not necessarily mean the discontinuation of existence. Isn't that the key ingredient of any religion?

Besides, the point is, they had no understanding of good and bad... they could not tell the two apart. Good to obey God, Bad to disobey?.. or is it the other way around? I can't tell, can you?... maybe after we eat this fruit, we will be able to tell?

losfomoT

01-24-08, 05:43 PM

Yes, you've chosen the secular view. The secular view takes no account of the metaphor being used. In biblical prophesy the bible uses the symbol of "the woman" and "seed" in accordance with government and to Jesus as coming through that "seed"

What does 'in biblical prophecy' refer to?

If you take a passage of the bible to be metaphorical, how do you know which metaphor is correct? It could have hundreds of metaphorical interpretations. Why don't you just take what is written to mean exactly what is written?

Myles

01-24-08, 06:10 PM

You have hit the nail on the head. Add to what you've said the fact that there were three generations between what Matthew wrote and what eye witnesses are supposed to have seen . Matthew was relying on the accuracy of an oral transmissionm which, as any psychologist will tell you ,is unreliable. Think Chinese whispers.

Finally think of the number of translations from different languages, i.e., Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek and you will see why there is so much dissent among Christian groups as to what the Bible is saying. Each sect or denomination has " experts " who know better than another cult's " experts"

SnakeLord

01-24-08, 06:15 PM

So you have your own perspective most people often do.
I was speaking of the biblical view.

What in my post wasn't the "biblical view"? That satan is blamed for everything nasty while god has the largest human kill count in the universe? The bible agrees, the bible merely shows that entity saying you must fear and worship it or it will do the same to you. It then concludes that you will be tortured in fire with gnashing of teeth unless you bow to him. Oh, and lest anyone forget.. satan's the bad guy.

I thought you didn't believe in God.

That depends... which one?

He said you "positively will not die". Considering that they did Indeed Die as a result wouldn't you call that deciet?

Not really. Upon eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve would realise the value in also eating from the tree of life and thus not die. That god cursed them and blocked off the tree is down to that god, not the serpent.

I don't understand.

With no knowledge of 'evil' or 'bad' how would you ever be able to determine that satan is 'evil'/'bad'? Simply put you wouldn't and thus might very well find yourself in collaboration with him because you do not have knowledge that he or his activities are evil.

Perhaps if your intrest is so strong you might look it up and let me know.

Well, the only word that seems to go well with god is "fictional".

Or it's understood that all prophesies in the bible are conveyed by metaphor and symbolism but you'd have to read and study to have that understanding.

Both read and studied. You're just reaching. It's like people advocating that Nostradamus made accurate predictions.. These things work purely because you can insert any meaning you want into them.

However, it's quite certain there is symbolism.. it relates to the cosmos, the stars. Even you recognised that angels were referred to as "third of the stars". So yeah, it all refers to the constellations. Maybe you should read and study to have that understanding. Sounds quite presumptuous does it not?

The rapist did have Free will. He did choose to do wrong. The child had free will aswell but obviously this did not lead to the mistake. I'm sure you knew that.

And then this god had the free will coupled with the ability to know what was going to happen and tripled with the ability to prevent it. He chose to sit on his ass and let the rapist rape and kill a 3 year old child. You would condemn any man choosing not to intervene when he knows someone is about to do something terrible and yet glorify this god for doing exactly the same.

And that's why we've been allowed to live. It wasn't our fault our original parents made a mistake that indangered us but we're living the consequences.

It wasn't their fault either. They were kids in a playpen. The parent, (god), put an open bottle of bleach in the playpen and said "don't drink it". What a butthead.

A perculiar statement.

Not peculiar at all. You claimed they knew good. god says: "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil". That statement by this god shows that they didn't have knowledge of good or evil until, (bizarrely enough), eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The name of the tree should have given you some indication Saquist.

If it leads to your death then I would have to classify that as bad wouldn't you?

Not if you have no knowledge of "bad". Duh. YOU indeed stated they had no knowledge of bad. You can hardly argue your case now.

Saquist

01-24-08, 06:39 PM

What in my post wasn't the "biblical view"? That satan is blamed for everything nasty while god has the largest human kill count in the universe? The bible agrees, the bible merely shows that entity saying you must fear and worship it or it will do the same to you. It then concludes that you will be tortured in fire with gnashing of teeth unless you bow to him. Oh, and lest anyone forget.. satan's the bad guy.

Everything in the post.
Satan has the the "largest kill count for misleading the original parents. Everyone who dies is a direct result of his actions.

That depends... which one?
That's for you to decide.

Not really. Upon eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve would realise the value in also eating from the tree of life and thus not die. That god cursed them and blocked off the tree is down to that god, not the serpent.

Actually you can only chose one not both.

With no knowledge of 'evil' or 'bad' how would you ever be able to determine that satan is 'evil'/'bad'? Simply put you wouldn't and thus might very well find yourself in collaboration with him because you do not have knowledge that he or his activities are evil.

Obedience. Loyalty, Trust.
Why else have parents?

Well, the only word that seems to go well with god is "fictional".

So be it.

And then this god had the free will coupled with the ability to know what was going to happen and tripled with the ability to prevent it. He chose to sit on his ass and let the rapist rape and kill a 3 year old child. You would condemn any man choosing not to intervene when he knows someone is about to do something terrible and yet glorify this god for doing exactly the same.

That's the say you think he's done nothing to correct the problem.

It wasn't their fault either. They were kids in a playpen. The parent, (god), put an open bottle of bleach in the playpen and said "don't drink it". What a butthead.

But they weren't children and they weren't ignorant. There are poisions all around us some people live with guns, open electrical plugs and drano under the sink. If your grown adult child decided to stick his finger in the socket, play with a gun, or swallow drano it's hardly your fault.

Not peculiar at all. You claimed they knew good. god says: "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil". That statement by this god shows that they didn't have knowledge of good or evil until, (bizarrely enough), eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The name of the tree should have given you some indication Saquist.

I can't agree. Nor does the rest of the bible. Sin or badness was a result of their actions in the Garden. Clearly they knew good. Infact Genesis does not tell us either way but the scriptures that follow make it clear that it was badness introduced not goodness. That was inherent in their design. That's why we're given the other 65 books.

Not if you have no knowledge of "bad". Duh. YOU indeed stated they had no knowledge of bad. You can hardly argue your case now.[/QUOTE]

Having no knowledge of bad means you're inclined to do good. The Tree was only symbolic. The bible doesn't say they were incapable of doing bad. It said they had no knowledge of it. Bad was a choice. They thus went against their own nature. The situation showed that not all knowledge is beneficial. They chose wrong and chose wrong for all of us.

It's been intresting listening to your beliefs.
It's been "intresting " hearing your position.

Myles

01-24-08, 06:46 PM

I am convinced that The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are true. It's a question of understanding the metaphors.

SnakeLord

01-24-08, 07:01 PM

Satan has the the "largest kill count for misleading the original parents. Everyone who dies is a direct result of his actions.

Not true.

1) god retains the largest kill count for allowing the serpent to 'deceive' his own children which was only possible because he had put a certain tree that he didn't want them to eat from right in front of them coupled with the biblical fact that he hadn't provided them with the needed knowledge with which to make an informed decision. More on this later..

2) Even if we completely ignore the above we have to recognise that this god drowned everyone - men, women and children. The only people he allowed to live were clearly blameless. He obviously picked them for good reason, and that reason is explained - upright, walk with god blah blah. Everyone is a descendant of a blameless man and yet we all still need a saviour and are born to sin. Can't blame the snake for that one, he was busy eating dust apparently.

Actually you can only chose one not both.

Says who?

Personally I would eat from the tree of knowledge, not the tree of life. Maybe it's just me but eternal life sounds so damn boring. Sure I could use more time, but I doubt I'd really give a shit about much in 50 gazillion gazillion gazillion years time. What makes it worse is that right now is about the time where some theist informs me that I would spend all of that time, (and the rest of eternity), worshipping this god. That's one hell of an ego... eternity of worship for him? He's pushing it a little bit.

Obedience. Loyalty, Trust.
Why else have parents?

Certainly. Of course as parents would know kids are vulnerable in that they do not have much in the way of knowledge of good and evil. They love you, trust you and are loyal but that doesn't stop them falling victim to the local paedophile because of their lack of knowledge of evil. As any parent bar one would tell you, if you knew they were going to fall victim you'd intervene. Any parent would. Except one. Any parent that willingly allows their children to become victims does not sit good in my book. Even worse would be the parent that, because of his kids mistake, then goes on to punish his grandkids, great grandkids and so on and so forth and then deems the best forgiveness is to kill his most special child.

That's the say you think he's done nothing to correct the problem.

That's interesting isn't it? You see, with all that blaming of satan and disrespect for him and it seems like he is doing even you a massive favour. It is typically held that these "bad" people, rapists and whatnot, get punished in hell - an eternal pit.. Funnily enough satan apparently rules that pit and therefore:

A) Is clearly still a much needed employee of god

B) Can hardly be accused of causing the problem when he is the method god uses to solve it.

C) Or... you're espousing that god does nothing to solve the problem but satan does.

There are poisions all around us some people live with guns, open electrical plugs and drano under the sink. If your grown adult child decided to stick his finger in the socket, play with a gun, or swallow drano it's hardly your fault.

It is my fault if I didn't give him knowledge of good and evil. There's nothing wrong with sticking your fingers in the electric socket when you have no understanding of wrong. Is playing with a gun bad? Not if you have no knowledge of 'bad'. That is why they were like children.

I can't agree. Nor does the rest of the bible.

You are now calling god a liar. In his own words he makes the statement that they gained the knowledge after eating the fruit. That you contest this issue is perhaps something you'd be better, (or worse), off taking up with god.

Clearly they knew good. Infact Genesis does not tell us either way

In fact Genesis does, indeed god does. You're calling god a liar and you're lying. That's not a good start. You can't say "clearly they knew good", state that the bible doesn't say so, against god's statements and consider yourself as having a worthwhile argument. But it's all you've got isn't it? Make it up, insert it yourself... Oh so shameful.

Having no knowledge of bad means you're inclined to do good.

Lol, you'd never know if what you did was bad. Not having knowledge of bad does not prevent you from doing it, it merely prevents you from recognising it for what it is.

Saquist

01-24-08, 10:03 PM

The point is, how would they know that, they have no knowledge of Good and Bad.

This does not tell them that death is bad. The 'discontinuation of life' on Earth, does not necessarily mean the discontinuation of existence. Isn't that the key ingredient of any religion?

Not according to the Bible. You're refering to the immortality of the soul. While the bible does speak about those that will become immortal it does not state that man's soul is undying infact it says the opposite. There are a couple scriptures refering to those that will go to heaven but these speak nothing of man's soul. In relation a vast majority of scriptures actually speak of death as sleep and as state where there is no planning or seeing or thinking, the same as the animals. There is of course disagreement.

Besides, the point is, they had no understanding of good and bad... they could not tell the two apart. Good to obey God, Bad to disobey?.. or is it the other way around? I can't tell, can you?... maybe after we eat this fruit, we will be able to tell?[/QUOTE]

(sorry I didn't see this)
Well lets assume they had neither I you suggest. Then why did they make this particular choice?

Where in genesis does it state they know good?
If they didn't know "bad" then they obviously could not separate the two concepts and know good was good. Nor could they know God was good.

You're right lets' not assume.
Imperfection means an error so we know they were without error. But that tells us nothing of what they new. We could assume but lets ask the all important question If you don't know then how do you make a choice?
Put yourself in there shoes at that time period. What would you do?

Revolvr

01-24-08, 10:21 PM

Im a strong believer in christ as my savior and in god and the holy spirit. A answer to these questions would furthur my walk with god even more. Thank you and god bless
-John D.

If you want a serious answer to a serious question about your faith, this is the last place I'd look. I suggest you find a Christian forum. The atheist faithful here will mostly try to talk you out of your delusion.

Myles

01-24-08, 10:40 PM

Nice to see you again in all your humility. You were going to explain why the greatest philosopher writing in English , David Hume, was arguing in a circle. Is that something you were told on a Christian forum ?

Stick to visiting Christian forums where you will have your ignorance re-inforced. Avoid people who reason, like the plague !

Revolvr

01-24-08, 10:55 PM

Revolvr

01-24-08, 11:00 PM

I understand your points of different or no belief's although trying to convince me there is no god is pretty much impossible because of my past experiences. Call me delusional.... call me anything I dont mind I would only like someone more scripturally educated to help me understand my own questions that are definitly answerable maybe not threw direct physical evidence but surely there is a answer.

Interesting the atheists here feel the need to evangelize their faith. Most atheists are evangelists. They want to argue it and appear to want to gain converts. Why would this be? I don't talk to people about my non-belief in pink unicorns. On the other hand if somewhere deep in my heart I really thought pink unicorns might exist, and I really wanted them not to exist and I felt insecure about it and wanted to talk to others to validate my belief, I might engage in arguments about pink unicorns. Perhaps this is why atheists feel the need to argue God so often?

SkinWalker

01-24-08, 11:25 PM

Interesting the atheists here feel the need to evangelize their faith. Most atheists are evangelists. They want to argue it and appear to want to gain converts.

Actually, what's interesting is your special type of ad hominem known as tu quoque (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fallacyfiles.org%2Ftuquoque.h tml&ei=gmOZR8P0BZ6EpwSxtsgN&usg=AFQjCNHDSeIsxkoHxz3rMICLugL-KPQslQ&sig2=x_SufNZL65jRESqH5f7juA).

It leaves one to wonder if the superstitious people who find themselves posting at the Religion section of a Science forum don't actually see some problem with their superstitions. Thus they basically say, "you, too" at accusations of faith, belief, evangelism, etc.

There's no "evangelism" of atheism going on here. I freely admit to the desire of wanting to share rational perspectives with a hope that rational thought will emerge. If this means that the discussions include the point of not buying into credulous claims of gods and superstitions, then that's a symptom of rational thought.

But, like many deluded by superstitions and cult beliefs, they want to say, "you, too!" to the atheists. Sorry. It doesn't wash, bub.

Myles

01-25-08, 04:40 AM

Your response to that validated my claim. No need to get on my case because you can't see it. There is much you can't see.

You and Saquist make a right pair. You both avoid facts like the plague.

What is " your response to that validated my claim" supposed to mean ?

It means you are so ignorant that you accuse one of the worls's greatest philosophers of arguing in a circle and ,when asked where he did so. you regard the question as validating your claim. A nice way to substantiate your claim.

I suggest you picked up that rubbish about Hume on a Christian website like some of the ones I have seen. They explain why evolutionary theory is wrong because the Bible does not sanction it, so they have invented ID. I have yet to speak to anyone on these sites who knows the first thing about evolution. How could they when they will not read " unholy " books which might rock the boat ?

Where others use reason to seek answers, you make it your business to remain ignorant and snipe at those who don't buy your mythology, using snippets of information which you do not understand and which you seem to think constitute an argument. You and Saquist have provided evidence that you cannot engage in rational debate, as anyone who looks at some of your other posts will see.

Saquist

01-25-08, 04:47 AM

Actually, what's interesting is your special type of ad hominem known as tu quoque (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fallacyfiles.org%2Ftuquoque.h tml&ei=gmOZR8P0BZ6EpwSxtsgN&usg=AFQjCNHDSeIsxkoHxz3rMICLugL-KPQslQ&sig2=x_SufNZL65jRESqH5f7juA).

It leaves one to wonder if the superstitious people who find themselves posting at the Religion section of a Science forum don't actually see some problem with their superstitions. Thus they basically say, "you, too" at accusations of faith, belief, evangelism, etc.

There's no "evangelism" of atheism going on here. I freely admit to the desire of wanting to share rational perspectives with a hope that rational thought will emerge. If this means that the discussions include the point of not buying into credulous claims of gods and superstitions, then that's a symptom of rational thought.

But, like many deluded by superstitions and cult beliefs, they want to say, "you, too!" to the atheists. Sorry. It doesn't wash, bub.

It's not an illogical path or reasoning but it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. Religion and faith can cause a sense of blindness but there are direct causes. Some like myself and Revolvr have found harmony between the two.

Yet I believe that those that are simply dogmatic in discussion whether believer or atheist fall short of rationality. irrationality is just the system of agenda.

Myles

01-25-08, 05:12 AM

It's not an illogical path or reasoning but it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. Religion and faith can cause a sense of blindness but there are direct causes. Some like myself and Revolvr have found harmony between the two.

Yet I believe that those that are simply dogmatic in discussion whether believer or atheist fall short of rationality. irrationality is just the system of agenda.

I would never accuse you of being rational; most of ypour posts show why this is so.

You start from the premise that the Bible, or rather your version of it. is the word of god which can only be questioned uncritically. From that point on the only thinking you do is about how to make the ridiculous plausible. And you can't even make a good job of that.

nova900

01-25-08, 08:01 AM

Imperfection means an error so we know they were without error. But that tells us nothing of what they new. We could assume but lets ask the all important question If you don't know then how do you make a choice?
Put yourself in there shoes at that time period. What would you do?

If I only knew good as you say and did not know the concept of bad,there is no way I could make a distinction between what God wanted (don't eat that apple) or Satan (eat that apple) as being either good or evil. Being only good and perfect as you say I would have no negative emotions or agenda and might have felt the devil was actually a good guy and trust him. I would have no way whatsoever of knowing that God was a superior being and represented what is supposed to be considered good.
If anything the God of the OT demonstrated very little in the way of what we consider morally good and the old excuse "his moral base is superior and beyond our understanding " is a total farce!
That's the thing I find most ironic. We are told the devil and his demons represent all those evil things but their actions in relation to Yahwehs constant fits of anger,jealousy,outright slaughters and constant contempt for so much around him is like comparing the actions of a naughty schoolboy to tyrants like Timur(Tamarlane)

Spud Emperor

01-25-08, 09:20 AM

Revolvr, I guarantee something was majorly amiss in your life until you found the wonderful sanctity of the Lord's word. Either that or you were brought up with the Lord/the way and never bothered to question. Which was it?

Revolvr

01-25-08, 10:01 AM

You and Saquist make a right pair. You both avoid facts like the plague.

What is " your response to that validated my claim" supposed to mean ?

It means you are so ignorant that you accuse one of the worls's greatest philosophers of arguing in a circle and ,when asked where he did so. you regard the question as validating your claim. A nice way to substantiate your claim.

I suggest you picked up that rubbish about Hume on a Christian website like some of the ones I have seen. They explain why evolutionary theory is wrong because the Bible does not sanction it, so they have invented ID. I have yet to speak to anyone on these sites who knows the first thing about evolution. How could they when they will not read " unholy " books which might rock the boat ?

Where others use reason to seek answers, you make it your business to remain ignorant and snipe at those who don't buy your mythology, using snippets of information which you do not understand and which you seem to think constitute an argument. You and Saquist have provided evidence that you cannot engage in rational debate, as anyone who looks at some of your other posts will see.

Who woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

You replied with a couple of quotes from Hume that in no way invalidated my view. I saw no need to reply further.

It is the atheist who has great faith in the nonexistence of the scientifically unproven. Doesn't seem too scientific to me. Atheism is intellectually dishonest. You go to your atheist Gospel web sites and pick up disingenuous one-sided arguments that commonly ignore facts and misinterpret the Bible, generate meaningless statistics. Then take great pride in repeating it here.

Atheists like to think the Gospel of Evolution disproves God. Evolution has become dogma, like anthropomorphic global warming, where scientists are not allowed to discuss its flaws. Why don't you tell me about the flaws? Can you be that objective? Evolution, even the parts that do fit the evidence, do not disprove God.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was quoted as saying, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Crick is an atheist. He cannot believe in a creator. So now he says that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships.

You believe this too don't you? Tell me more about these spaceships.

Saquist

01-25-08, 10:11 AM

If I only knew good as you say and did not know the concept of bad,there is no way I could make a distinction between what God wanted (don't eat that apple) or Satan (eat that apple) as being either good or evil. Being only good and perfect as you say I would have no negative emotions or agenda and might have felt the devil was actually a good guy and trust him. I would have no way whatsoever of knowing that God was a superior being and represented what is supposed to be considered good.

You share a similar mind as Adam. Let's assume he knew neither Good nor bad. You both have a reasoning mind and a sense of self preservation.
So where does the warning "not to eat from the tree" stand for you?
Do you endanger your life or not? And Why?

Saquist

01-25-08, 10:13 AM

Who woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

It is the atheist who has great faith in the nonexistence of the scientifically unproven. Doesn't seem too scientific to me. Atheism is intellectually dishonest.

Truer words rarely been spoken on the Forum.

Revolvr

01-25-08, 10:15 AM

Spud Emperor

01-25-08, 10:23 AM

What brings you to such a conclusion?

You sound like a second rate politician. Or an apologetic Christian.
Just answer the question. It is not that hard.

nova900

01-25-08, 10:35 AM

You share a similar mind as Adam. Let's assume he knew neither Good nor bad. You both have a reasoning mind and a sense of self preservation.
So where does the warning "not to eat from the tree" stand for you?
Do you endanger your life or not? And Why?

I would ask both parties involved to explain their case as to why I should or should not eat from the tree of knowledge.
I would ask why is knowledge bad? Why is Satan evil? What are his qualities that qualify him to be evil . I would ask God...why are you good? What qualities do you possess that make you good?
If as you say I knew neither evil or good and If an implied threat of dying is being made this still does not tell me the differences between good and evil and why I should pick one over another.

Revolvr

01-25-08, 11:01 AM

You sound like a second rate politician. Or an apologetic Christian.

You come to very big conclusions based on very little evidence. Is that how you approach life? I hope not for it often leads you astray.

Just answer the question. It is not that hard.

Oh my, I 'd better answer then because the Emperor demands it! Since you're such a nice guy, I'll tell you: Neither. But thanks for playing.

So what's your story? Agnostic? Atheist? Panspermist?

Spud Emperor

01-25-08, 11:43 AM

You come to very big conclusions based on very little evidence. Is that how you approach life? I hope not for it often leads you astray.

Oh my, I 'd better answer then because the Emperor demands it! Since you're such a nice guy, I'll tell you: Neither. But thanks for playing.

So what's your story? Agnostic? Atheist? Panspermist?

"neither" Err, I don't think that actually qualifies as an answer, it's more like a cop out.
Come on [Insult Removed], elaborate (for Christ's sake)

p.s Panspermist!, you do know that my ability not to make at least three pathetic puns from this is nil, don't you?

Myles

01-25-08, 12:17 PM

[QUOTE=Revolvr;1725929]Who woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

You replied with a couple of quotes from Hume that in no way invalidated my view. I saw no need to reply further.

It is the atheist who has great faith in the nonexistence of the scientifically unproven. Doesn't seem too scientific to me. Atheism is intellectually dishonest. You go to your atheist Gospel web sites and pick up disingenuous one-sided arguments that commonly ignore facts and misinterpret the Bible, generate meaningless statistics. Then take great pride in repeating it here.

Atheists like to think the Gospel of Evolution disproves God. Evolution has become dogma, like anthropomorphic global warming, where scientists are not allowed to discuss its flaws. Why don't you tell me about the flaws? Can you be that objective? Evolution, even the parts that do fit the evidence, do not disprove God.

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was quoted as saying, "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

Crick is an atheist. He cannot believe in a creator. So now he says that some form of primordial life was shipped to the earth billions of years ago in spaceships.

You believe this too don't you? Tell me more about these spaceships.

Don't you give a damn for the truth ? If you look back at the post I referred to you will see that YOU were the one who mentioned Hume. You, or one of your mentors,concoted a stupid little syllogism purporting to have been used by Hume in relation to miracles. You claimed he had argued in a circle I challenged you to cite where in Humes works that syllogism occurs but you have never come back with an answer. At the time I quoted some of what Hume DID say about miracles and gave you a source. You ovviously couldn't be bothereed to follow it up.

So I repeat. where in Humes works is that stupid syllogism to be found.

You make a practice of saying things that are patently untrue and when your error is pointed out. you just ignore what is said to you. In my book , that makes you a liar or incredibly stupid or both.

You are now clutching at another straw by mentioning Crick, as opposed to answering my question about Hume.

I do not believe life came to earth in spaceships, so don't put words in my mouth. You are just playing another of your games in the hope that your stupid claims and failure to answer questions will be overlooked.

As for the rest , try and resist your little ad hominens about getting out of bed and so on. You think such statements bolster your position; on the contrary, the show you have nothing of substance to say.

Evolution ? You know nothing about it. What have you read about evolution and what are your objections ? Or are you just taking the easy way out and believing the crap I have seen on some Creationists sites ? Try telling me wht you know at first hand.

Saquist

01-25-08, 12:59 PM

I would ask both parties involved to explain their case as to why I should or should not eat from the tree of knowledge.
I would ask why is knowledge bad? Why is Satan evil? What are his qualities that qualify him to be evil . I would ask God...why are you good? What qualities do you possess that make you good?
If as you say I knew neither evil or good and If an implied threat of dying is being made this still does not tell me the differences between good and evil and why I should pick one over another.

Remember you have no knowledge of Good and Bad thus you couldn't ask these questions. There are questions you could have asked but the nature of Good and Bad would not have been one of those questions since we're going from the assumption they had no knowledge of either.

Additional:
Satan the Devil means :Slander and Deciver.
It was only at this exact moment when he bore false witness did he lose his perfect state and become sinful.

However assuming you did know what at least Good was sense God says that you were created and declared Good you have already done more than Adam and Eve who didn't question either the serpent or God.

nova900

01-25-08, 01:28 PM

Remember you have no knowledge of Good and Bad thus you couldn't ask these questions.

Thats just plain illogical!
No knowledge of good or evil would be the reason I ask those questions. Otherwise,why should I listen to one over the other??
In a case like that it would just seem like I'm stuck between two warring beings and have no criteria myself to determine one should be obeyed and the other not obeyed.

Additional:
Satan the Devil means :Slander and Deciver.
It was only at this exact moment when he bore false witness did he lose his perfect state and become sinful.

If I was Adam or Eve I probably would not understand what "deceiver" or "slander" mean ,so it's irrelavent.

Revolvr

01-25-08, 02:00 PM

You make a practice of saying things that are patently untrue and when your error is pointed out. you just ignore what is said to you. In my book , that makes you a liar or incredibly stupid or both.

I don't know why you are so uptight about Hume. You also have a tendency to state that everyone who disagrees with you is a stupid ignorant liar. Which is a stupid ignorant thing to say, which might explain why sometimes people don't respond to you. It is normally not worth any effort to respond to closed-minded egotists.

But I suppose we can go back to it. I had said Hume's argument looks like this:

A) I know a priori that miracles cannot exist. Therefore
1) No witness for the defense is reliable enough
2) No evidence or testimony is reliable enough

Why A)? Because "all miracles violate our firm and unalterable experience that establishes the laws of nature".

My bullets 1) and 2) under A) come directly from this work, Section X, Part II, roughly pages 117 to 128. He is describing the criteria used to affirm the occurrence of miracles. The term “firm and unalterable” is from page 114 where he defines miracles.

Look carefully at these criteria. I see no way to provide adequate evidence that miracles exist. Example:

No man, not even many, can be of "such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning" or can be of "such undoubted integrity" or of "such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind" that they can convince skeptics that the witnesses for miracles are not deluded or do not have "any design to deceive others" or are not exempt from self-interest and shame of being detected in promoting miracles (pp. 116-17).

Your reply was this:

If you read chapter 10 part 1 you will see that Hume is saying:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. He gives examples to make his meaning clear.

He concludes " The plain consequence is (..........) that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it endeavours to establish. " He has more to say for those who care to read the passage I have cited. I see no circularity in Hume's argument.

So, it appears you agree with me up to this point. Hume has set up the conditions for affirming the occurrence of miracles. These conditions cannot be met. Thus, no persons testimony, even if he has the utmost integrity and honesty, can overturn the laws of nature established by "firm and unalterable" experience. Your reply was consistent with my argument so I never replied.

Hume has stacked the deck. He assumes the answer before looking at evidence. The circularity comes in due to A). We know miracles are impossible because the evidence for them is false. We have no evidence for them because no evidence is good enough and must be rejected. Because no satisfactory evidence has been found, we know miracles don't occur.

This is prejudicial. Hume laughs out of court all exonerating testimonies, regardless of how strong and reliable they are.

Circularity is only evident if one rejects A). That is why I see it and you don't, even though we read the same thing.

I interpret things differently than you. You can call me and others stupid ignorant liars all you want if it makes you feel better about yourself. Doesn't bother me a bit.

Myles

01-25-08, 05:38 PM

I don't know why you are so uptight about Hume. You also have a tendency to state that everyone who disagrees with you is a stupid ignorant liar. Which is a stupid ignorant thing to say, which might explain why sometimes people don't respond to you. It is normally not worth any effort to respond to closed-minded egotists.

But I suppose we can go back to it. I had said Hume's argument looks like this:

A) I know a priori that miracles cannot exist. Therefore
1) No witness for the defense is reliable enough
2) No evidence or testimony is reliable enough

Why A)? Because "all miracles violate our firm and unalterable experience that establishes the laws of nature".

My bullets 1) and 2) under A) come directly from this work, Section X, Part II, roughly pages 117 to 128. He is describing the criteria used to affirm the occurrence of miracles. The term “firm and unalterable” is from page 114 where he defines miracles.

Look carefully at these criteria. I see no way to provide adequate evidence that miracles exist. Example:

No man, not even many, can be of "such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning" or can be of "such undoubted integrity" or of "such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind" that they can convince skeptics that the witnesses for miracles are not deluded or do not have "any design to deceive others" or are not exempt from self-interest and shame of being detected in promoting miracles (pp. 116-17).

Your reply was this:

If you read chapter 10 part 1 you will see that Hume is saying:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. He gives examples to make his meaning clear.

He concludes " The plain consequence is (..........) that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact it endeavours to establish. " He has more to say for those who care to read the passage I have cited. I see no circularity in Hume's argument.

So, it appears you agree with me up to this point. Hume has set up the conditions for affirming the occurrence of miracles. These conditions cannot be met. Thus, no persons testimony, even if he has the utmost integrity and honesty, can overturn the laws of nature established by "firm and unalterable" experience. Your reply was consistent with my argument so I never replied.

Hume has stacked the deck. He assumes the answer before looking at evidence. The circularity comes in due to A). We know miracles are impossible because the evidence for them is false. We have no evidence for them because no evidence is good enough and must be rejected. Because no satisfactory evidence has been found, we know miracles don't occur.

This is prejudicial. Hume laughs out of court all exonerating testimonies, regardless of how strong and reliable they are.

Circularity is only evident if one rejects A). That is why I see it and you don't, even though we read the same thing.

I interpret things differently than you. You can call me and others stupid ignorant liars all you want if it makes you feel better about yourself. Doesn't bother me a bit.

You are a hopeless case. I asked you where that syllogism appears in Hume's work. You still have not told me because you made it up. Thar says something about you.

You do not understand what Hume is saying about miracles. He is NOT dismissing them, merely suggesting what would be necessary for us to believe in them. If you were more widely read you would know that most pholosophers accept that he is not saying miracles are impossible; merely that we require extraordinary evidence to support an extraordinary claim

You, I imagine, believe that Lazarus was raised from the dead. Given our experience, no one has seen such a thing. Moreover, based on our knowledge, we know that the body would be decomposing and that the brain would be irreversibly damaged after half an hour. Hume is rightly saying that such an event would require an extraordinary explanation, as it could not be explained in terms of our normal experience. You, no doubt ,think otherwise.

You are way out of your depth but there is no way anyone can make you see that.

Myles

01-25-08, 05:50 PM

Truer words rarely been spoken on the Forum.

Look chum,

You need to sort out the difference between belief and knowledge. Belief requires no empirical evidence wheras knowledge does. You can believe there are cabbages growing on mars but that does not guarantee its truth,

And yes, the Bible does not count as empirical evidence, so you are left with belief. That accounts for the great number of Christian sects , each one having its own set of beliefs.

SnakeLord

01-25-08, 07:34 PM

Satan the Devil means :Slander and Deciver.

Actually it means 'adversary, one who plots against another'. You seemingly enjoy just making shit up as you go along, can I ask why?

Out of interest, you missed one of my posts. It awaits your response. Thanks.

Saquist

01-25-08, 10:12 PM

Thats just plain illogical!
No knowledge of good or evil would be the reason I ask those questions. .

These are your words bellow.
If I was Adam or Eve I probably would not understand what "deceiver" or "slander" mean ,so it's irrelavent.

Do you think that it is illogical to suggest that Adam and Eve did not understand the language that was given to them or illogical that they did not understand both good or evil.

I can't find either very logical.

Actually it means 'adversary, one who plots against another'. You seemingly enjoy just making shit up as you go along, can I ask why?

Out of interest, you missed one of my posts. It awaits your response. Thanks.

You believe I missed your post. I assure you I did not. I read and understood. Do you need more attention than a listening ear? Do you need a challenge or perhaps someone you can challenge to oppose or resist...do you need me to be your adversary?

I was wrong, Satan means "opposer" or "resister", devil means "slanderer"