Conquer Club

Juan_Bottom wrote:Chuck Norris doesn't wear a watch because HE decides what time it is. God doesn't need spell check because HE decides what a word means.

GOD: Hey 2dimes splynkydink, lol!

2DIMES: lol God, splynkydink isn't a wor---oh oh oh God I'm on fire!!! Ow OOW it's burning OOOH it hurts so much! Ow!!! halp Oh ow!!!!

GOD: lol, it is now biatch.

...Which is strikingly similar to the fashion in which Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks any and all dissenters. Now do you see the obvious parallel?

b.k. barunt wrote:OK, so did Adam have a navel?


Honibaz

Of course he did!

All of mankind can trace their Y chromosomes back to a single male individual and motochondrian DNA to a single female individual.

Of course, that doesn't mean they were our only ancestors.

(oops... now which side am I arguing again?... lol)

I hate this thread then, all these religious threads are the same crap.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

luns101 wrote:A third option which just came to mind while responding to you is that God is all-knowing & all-powerful, but chose not to prevent the bad thing from happening. This would contradict the claim that God is good, benevolent, or whatever term you wish to describe His nature in positive terms.

I would say the proof that God is good is that he didn't protect the dog.
Had he stopped the police officer, that would have meant that he never gave the police officer any choices. That life is "my way or the highway." But God isn't like that. God doesn't want us to be some puppet on a string. And besides, it's impossable for us to know what is the right thing for God to do.



I have to get out of here before I start to understand the noble opposition.................

Huh? I thought God was the police officer in your analogy. In which case it doesn't make much difference if he had a plan or not. He was the one who killed the dog, and he turns around and tells the rest of us "thou shalt not..." etc. etc. etc. Why should we follow his laws when he has such contempt for them?

God is NOT a policeman.
He is judge, jury, and prison warden.
Wait, that last one is jay.

jonesthecurl wrote:God is NOT a policeman.
He is judge, jury, and prison warden.
Wait, that last one is jay.

lol, but seriously if a judge breaks the law he/she loses his/her office. We expect earthly judges and officials to uphold the law. Why should it be different for a divine one?

You know what I ment.

Juan_Bottom wrote:It's not that he allowed it to take place, it's that he allowed the police officer to make his own choice. If God had saved the dog at the last second, then there never would have been a choice. You wouldn't follow your kids to off to college... or to the movies with their date... or to their job would you? But that doesn't mean that you don't want them to make the right choices. You have a plan for them, and God has a plan for you.

I won't quote everything you wrote, Juan. You pretty much summed up everything in your first paragraph. I guess I can sort of see your point - in order for there to be true love reciprocated by man towards God (assuming He exists), there must be free will involved otherwise it's not really a relationship between the Creator and the Created. It's not like I haven't heard something similar to that before.

But in reality, Juan...this leads me to a further question (remember, I'm arguing mostly against the idea of God from a Christian perspective since my country generally defines God in this way, ok?):

Let's just assume that God must allow free will for humankind. If God created this world and cares about it, why is there so much darn suffering even outside of His church involving all of His creation? I don't think we can just sweep aside the problem of evil or suffering so easily under the name of free will (or as you put it, choices) When the freedom to decide to do harm results in pain and suffering to innocent people, God is simply not the "loving" God that Christians make Him out to be!

Let's say a criminal commits a horrendous act of sexual assault on an innocent girl. Sure, the criminal had free will to commit the crime, but what choice did the innocent girl have? Basically, it would seem that God cares more about the the freedom of the criminal, but not the freedom of the victim.

People die from famine and droughts all the time. They didn't choose to be victims of those circumstances. Nature just got screwed up and put them in those situations. Where was the "loving" and "caring" God during those times? Did He just forget about them?

It's just that the world doesn't reflect the God that I've heard described as on TV, radio, or at various religious services I've observed.

jonesthecurl wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:OK, so did Adam have a navel?


Honibaz

hmm - it doesn't say. But I'm guessing "yes", since he would have been created as a normal functioning adult.

Ummm, a normal adult does not need a navel to function.


Honibaz

luns, I have to say I'm impressed by your ability to argue the counter to your position.

CrazyAnglican wrote:luns, I have to say I'm impressed by your ability to argue the counter to your position.

Seconded, luns is making me think. He would never miss an educational opportunity of course.

b.k. barunt wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:OK, so did Adam have a navel?


Honibaz

hmm - it doesn't say. But I'm guessing "yes", since he would have been created as a normal functioning adult.

Ummm, a normal adult does not need a navel to function.


Honibaz

no I reasoned that he would be indistinguishable from a person begotten, not made. Carrying the evidence of previous, non-exisent experiences such as breathing, eating, drinking, etc. One of the simulated experiences would be birth. he would no more be free of a navel than he would of DNA which would look just like it had been inherited.

Hmm, hadn't considered that aspect of the DNA. You may have a point. Now how many cows did Moses take onto the ark?


Honibaz

The story of the arc is not yet completely clear to me - I do believe, though (amongst other things) that some of the female animals may have been pregnant.
I am not too clear just now on what happens where there are several types of a species. Did Noah have to take a pair of every type of finch from the Galapgos islands? Or did the differentiation take place afterwards? Poodles, chihuahuas and Irish wolfhounds? Or was there at that time just one species of Ur-dog?

john9blue wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:luns, I have to say I'm impressed by your ability to argue the counter to your position.

Seconded, luns is making me think. He would never miss an educational opportunity of course.

Thanks gentlemen, remember though...I used to be one of them so maybe that's what makes it a little easier for me.

I too used to be on he other side of this fence. Not quite as far as to support my arguments here, but vehemently faithful.

I, on the other hand am not on the fence, but often see the fence placed where others do not.

Child-molestation jokes are not funny.

jonesthecurl wrote:Or was there at that time just one species of Ur-dog?

Yes.