Conquer Club

Hologram wrote:He's the pope, he doesn't have to answer to anyone except God.

And by the transitive power, the Des Moines City Council.

THOSE FUCKERS.

I prefer the Fairy tales with Pixies,Bunnies and Elves, the readers tend to be less retarded

comic boy wrote:I prefer the Fairy tales with Pixies,Bunnies and Elves, the readers tend to be less retarded

And its readers actually realise how wrong they were after several years

b.k. barunt wrote:

Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.

This should be food for thought here, for anyone who might be inclined in that area. In any other genre, a post this self contradictory and stoopid would probably be ignored, with one or two spammish comments by innocent bystanders. This one however, generated 5 fooking pages! Amazing.

First of all, "God designs humans to be sinful" - did you hear someone say that? Did you see it on TV? Where, pray tell, did you get that? I read somewhere (lemmesee, where was that?) that He created Adam and Eve perfect, so where did you get your info? Also, wherethefuck was the second genocide that He "committed"? Just wonderin.


Honibaz

Since you're you're throwing the tantrum: "it's too long!! No more reading ma, all those letters are just too hard" let me just explain the part that you seem to be stuck on. Heh, the first one, who would've guessed.

God created Adam and Eve-correct
God created Adam and Eve and he made them perfect-Wrong as because if they were perfect they would not have been tempted
God is all knowing meaning he knew that Adam and Eve would be tempted when he created them. -Correct
God is also all-powerful meaning he should be able to create species that could've been better at resisting temptation-Correct
God is all knowing yet he knew Satan would tempt them but offered no advice such as "Btw guys that snake-yeah don't listen to it"-Correct
God is all powerful meaning he could've put this tree of knowledge on a very high mountain or something. But no-Wrong
God then throws a massive angry fit once they do eat it though he knew from the beginning they would-Correct

Seriously it's like telling your children not to eat a single cookie from the massive cookie jar while you go to work. While you know that their older teenage brother will probably try talk them into eating it. And then coming back home and when you do find out that they did eat a cookie each you throw them out onto the street. While the children in this metaphor are toddlers. And while you are all-powerful and all-knowing meaning you knew they would eat the cookie, chose to still put the cookie jar in a very accessible place, allow their older brother to tell them that if they eat a cookie each no-one will notice and then once they ate it as you knew you they would, you punish them for the flaw you made them with. But you still love them. But then after 40 years you see their children, who are all homeless drunks and you kill all of them, but one. And then promise you won't do it again. And then you send your son to "break" his unbreakable glasses. For the drinking and drug-taking you knew they would do once you cast out their ancestors. And then plotting to kill them all again.

Yeah. It makes sense

"God is all knowing yet he knew Satan would tempt them but offered no advice such as "Btw guys that snake-yeah don't listen to it"-Correct"

God told them not to eat of that tree. The snake told them they could. They did not listen to God. He would not have had to say to watch out for the snake in this instance as the snake told them to do something God already told them not to do.

"God is all powerful meaning he could've put this tree of knowledge on a very high mountain or something. But no-Wrong"
You miss the point here, as God is giving them a chance to do as they are told and they fail


Seriously it's like telling your children not to eat a single cookie from the massive cookie jar while you go to work. While you know that their older teenage brother will probably try talk them into eating it. And then coming back home and when you do find out that they did eat a cookie each you throw them out onto the street. While the children in this metaphor are toddlers. And while you are all-powerful and all-knowing meaning you knew they would eat the cookie, chose to still put the cookie jar in a very accessible place, allow their older brother to tell them that if they eat a cookie each no-one will notice and then once they ate it as you knew you they would, you punish them for the flaw you made them with. But you still love them. But then after 40 years you see their children, who are all homeless drunks and you kill all of them, but one. And then promise you won't do it again. And then you send your son to "break" his unbreakable glasses. For the drinking and drug-taking you knew they would do once you cast out their ancestors. And then plotting to kill them all again.

So basically what you are saying here is that it would be everyones fault but your own for not doing what you are supposed to. That is the problem with the way people think today. "Its not fair for me to be tempted by the pile of cookies on the counter" Well, get over it and have some self disipline. I did not force the cookie down your throat I only put it there to see if I could trust you with more important matters.

PopeBenXVI wrote:
So basically what you are saying here is that it would be everyones fault but your own for not doing what you are supposed to. That is the problem with the way people think today. "Its not fair for me to be tempted by the pile of cookies on the counter" Well, get over it and have some self disipline. I did not force the cookie down your throat I only put it there to see if I could trust you with more important matters.

but god knew all along we were going to eat the cookies. I believe the theological expression for this sort of paradox is 'retarded'.

We thought you were banned...

Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.

you have a problem with the black jesus? it all makes sense to me.-0

You guys should read some Malanbranche, this is all discussed at length.
Well (and this is the funny part) I'm not even a lover of judeo-christian belief, but I have studied it at length.
Nothing you're saying (the questioners including the quite disrespectful and tasteless creator of this thread with the erudite subject) is novel. But what you are questioning has been perfectly explained in numerous sources, and through countless theological debates (by people with much more acumen, wisdom and knowledge).
Read a book, look it up, but please don't taut pages of shallow pathos here.
Well, on second thought, do it. But you're only touching the surface.

If the Creator of the universe gave you life and asks only that you not do one thing (eating from a certain tree) but you cant obey Him then you deserve to be punished.

God is mean for designing people to be sinful? How should he have designed human beings? to be unthinking robots?

Skittles! wrote:We thought you were banned...

They wouldn't dare. Twill = wrapped around my little finger, the snivelling little toerag.

Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.

*correction- God did not design us to be sinful. Sin is a choice. "For the wages of sin is death (spiritual) but the free gift of God is eternal life." We have hope in Christ.

I was saying to Mrs Curl the other day, when the conversation for soe reason turned to penguins,
"it seems to me that things like penguins and dolphins are good proof of evolution - what engineer would design a bird that can't fly, or a mammal with no legs that lives in the water? It's hardly Intelligent Design, is it? I mena, if it was God's work, surely God wouldn't be that stupid?"

"I dunno, " replied Mrs Curl, " Look at some of the people he sends to our front door to convert us."

Ok, religious guys, please tell me where i`m wrong in the following reasoning.

God is omniscient. Therefore before he creates man, he knows what the man he`ll create will do.
Kind of like before i write a computer program, i know what it`s going to do.

He then continues to create man, and what he knew would happen, happens.
Kind of like i finish writing my program and it does what i knew it would do.

Oh, i see how that is totally man`s fault...

Omniscience and free will cannot coexist, ffs.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Omniscience and free will cannot coexist, ffs.

I agree with you, but let me slightly alter that statement to be perfectly airtight from a logical standpoint. An omniscient creator and creations with free will can not coexist. This is a fact. There is no way to get around it.

Well, cause you see, if she floats, then she's a witch, and we get burn her (Oh happy day!). But if she drowns, then she wasn't a witch.

Iliad wrote:

comic boy wrote:I prefer the Fairy tales with Pixies,Bunnies and Elves, the readers tend to be less retarded

And its readers actually realise how wrong they were after several years

b.k. barunt wrote:

Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.

This should be food for thought here, for anyone who might be inclined in that area. In any other genre, a post this self contradictory and stoopid would probably be ignored, with one or two spammish comments by innocent bystanders. This one however, generated 5 fooking pages! Amazing.

First of all, "God designs humans to be sinful" - did you hear someone say that? Did you see it on TV? Where, pray tell, did you get that? I read somewhere (lemmesee, where was that?) that He created Adam and Eve perfect, so where did you get your info? Also, wherethefuck was the second genocide that He "committed"? Just wonderin.


Honibaz

God created Adam and Eve-correct
God created Adam and Eve and he made them perfect-Wrong as because if they were perfect they would not have been tempted
God is all knowing meaning he knew that Adam and Eve would be tempted when he created them. -Correct
God is also all-powerful meaning he should be able to create species that could've been better at resisting temptation-Correct
God is all knowing yet he knew Satan would tempt them but offered no advice such as "Btw guys that snake-yeah don't listen to it"-Correct
God is all powerful meaning he could've put this tree of knowledge on a very high mountain or something. But no-Wrong
God then throws a massive angry fit once they do eat it though he knew from the beginning they would-Correct

Yeah. It makes sense

Heh heh, illy, i love the way you answer each one of your opinions with "correct" - kinda like a doityourself kit for boosting your self image? You correct your own IQ tests too? So you're pissed at God because He didn't make you too bright, and gave you a small penis - surprise surprise.

I myself don't claim to follow the teachings of the scriptures - i couldn't handle the heat so i got out of the kitchen. My failure, however, does not negate the truth of the scriptures, and i've put thousands of hours of study into that book, at first to find a mistake - i mean shit, it was written by numerous authors, so there has to be a contradiction somewhere, right? I couldn't find one though, and people a lot smarter than any of us have been trying to for centuries.

Mormonism had 2 authors (Smith and Young), who contradicted each other (and themselves) right off the bat. Islam only had one author, and Mohammed is a case study in contradiction. The Bible, however, had numerous "authors", from semi-literate shepherds and fishermen to princes and kings, and not one contradiction. I've studied the Hebrew and Greek, and that just increases the incredible complexity of how it's woven together.

The professing believers (all but a very small number) in the Bible have, over 2,000 years made a carnival of horrors out of the teachings of Christ. This is where i questioned God, and was my eventual downfall spiritually. I can respect the opinions and questions of some of the skeptics on this forum, and have had some interesting, heated discussions with Heavy Cola, Dancing Mustard and Backglass, among others, but to see unschooled morons like illy and simon blathering stupidly over something that has confounded men of far greater intellect over the years, is just wrong. Ignorance beyond a certain level just gives me a case of the red ass. Go figure.


Honibaz

Wow, what a thread. I must admit I toyed with not bothering to post because lets be honest for a moment. Some of you are here just for the flame war and the debate and are not interested in answers. I mean lets just be real. If we are going to discuss the God of heaven and earth and the creator of the universe, then we should know if we are going to be real about whether or not we really want answers and some of you don't. Fair enough. However, for those who do, I have a few things to say.

Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.

Some people have touched on this, and I am going to add my two cents, and remember you opened this can of worms. To begin with, God created us to have freedom of choice like God has freedom of choice and with the choice comes the ability to choose to not obey God (this is the definition of sin not obeying God). Furthermore, God designed us to rule over the earth. Take a look at what God said.

Genesis 1:26 wrote:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Now, we were created in God's image with the freedom to make a choice, a choice to follow what God told us to do or to not follow what God told us to do. Simple, straight forward. Furthermore, God created us this way because God, as mentioned, can see the big picture. He can see all eternity and wanted to create a set of people that was like him that he could have as like companions and friends that would CHOOSE to love Him and live with him. And God desperately wants us to make the choice to be with him and follow him.

2 Peter 3:9 wrote:9 The Lord does not delay and is not tardy or slow about what He promises, according to some people's conception of slowness, but He is long-suffering (extraordinarily patient) toward you, not desiring that any should perish, but that all should turn to repentance.

And this is why he created us with the ability to make a choice.

Now, God did create Satan as an anointed cherub angel.

Ezekiel 28:14-15 wrote:14 You were the anointed cherub who covers, And I placed you there You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 You were blameless in your ways From the day you were created Until unrighteousness was found in you.

And Satan was blameless until he rebelled against God. He didn't just become vain, he decided that he was greater then God and basically lead a revolt.

Isaiah 14:12-15 wrote:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!
13 But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north.
14 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'
15 Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, To the recesses of the pit.

You can say that God was mean and that God was overbearing, but Satan convinced a third of the angels to side with him and that did not happen over night. That tells us that God allowed Satan to operate for some time and most likely, given what we see of God's character in the Word, God spoke to him about his attitude giving him chances to change. And then only after God realized that there was no hope for his redemption did he remove him from heaven. And that was the ultimate act of compassion because he could have destroyed Satan especially considering all the things that Satan would do from that point forward.

Return back to the Garden after God created Adam and Eve. God told them basically that everything that he created was all for them and for their pleasure EXCEPT one tree. Think about that. God goes through all the trouble of creating a PLANET for you and a paradise garden for you to live in and all he asks is that you refrain from ONE tree. Yes, God knew what was going to happen, but come on, it was one tree out of probably hundreds or thousands. Give me a break with the whole he should have known better. So, he says to not touch the one tree and obviously Satan heard this as well because he comes and convinces Eve to eat.

Genesis 3:1-7 wrote:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

The devil is very crafty and we should never underestimate him. He comes and lies to Eve. How, because Eve was already like God in that she was made in his image and likeness. Just because she never disobeyed his command does not mean that she was not like him. I know how he phrased the statement, but he did so to entice her into eating the apple. Then Adam ate. When this happened, sin entered the world and we abdicated our rulership to the devil, and we entered into a contract with the devil and we now share in his punishment.

Romans 3;23 wrote:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

The good news is that God knew this was going to happen and didn't just leave us hanging. He had a plan.

John 3:16 wrote:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Jesus came to this world. Now, someone mentioned that Mary was one woman who really stuck to her story. Well, let me put it this way, if she wasn't a virgin then there is no redemption for anyone. Why? Simple, we are all born under the covenant that Adam and Eve made with the devil that separated us from God and placed us apart from Heaven and the Garden of Eden and separated from the tree of life. Now, because of this contract, we are destined to eternal damnation.

Romans 6:23a wrote:23 For the wages of sin is death

And everyone who is born is bound to this. However, Jesus was not born like we were.

Luke 1:34-35 wrote:34 Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"
35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

The power of the Most High will overshadow Mary and Jesus was not born like we were but of a Virgin and overshadowed by the power of God and not under the covenant and contract with the devil. This allowed him to operate under the original covenant with God and why he could walk and do miracles and be filled with God's Holy Spirit. This is also why he could go to the cross as God's spotless lamb as a sacrifice for all of us and pay the price for our failure.

Isaiah 53:4-7 wrote:4Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.
6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.

And by his sacrifice, he redeemed us from the devil and broke the covenant with the devil. He shattered what happened in the Garden so that we could be able to commune with God again. His single act of love at the cross and through the cross broke through time and crushed all that the enemy had ever planned to destroy all of mankind. And Jesus did it for you. And he would have done it for even one of you, and just one. That is how much Jesus loves everyone. And now that he has done this, authority has returned to him.

Matthew 28:18 wrote:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

And because of this, we can now avoid death and eternal damnation.

Romans 6:23 wrote:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It is a free gift that God offers to all. You call him cruel in this thread and I say that you don't know him because he has opened heaven to you through the sacrifice of his son.

John 15:13 wrote:13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.

God has called you his friend and he loves you and Jesus has laid his life down for you and all you have to do is accept him and have eternal life.

Romans 10:9-10 wrote:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Heaven, eternal life, paradise for all eternity is a free gift that is freely given and all you have to do is ask and truly believe and it is yours. And that is the greatness of our God.

Now, all this was said to demonstrate the reason why God gave us free will. If we did not have free will we could not choose to love him, to follow him, to take his free gift of heaven. God has opened up everything about himself and freely given to all who ask. This is why I have seen miracle after miracle from cancers falling off of people to blinded eyes healed to mute people's voices returned to my own miraculous return from deaths door. And all of this, I have seen with my own eyes. I have even seen my son who accidentally fell out of a second story window and had every bone in his body just about broken verified by people only to have them healed by God in the Emergency Room. And that is just the beginning because God freely gives to those who ask. And I can go on and on and on.

Perhaps it is time that we stop mocking God and his Word and give him a try. You might be surprised that he meets you where you are and does something amazing.

Anyway, that is what I have to say for now and again I remind you that you did ask for this.
JH

Beautifully argued, JH, much more so than most fundamentalist posters on CC.

I still think its nonsense, but thank you sincerely for taking the time to try.

jonesthecurl wrote:Beautifully argued, JH, much more so than most fundamentalist posters on CC.

I still think its nonsense, but thank you sincerely for taking the time to try.

According to B.K., it was internally coherent, therefore holy. Nice work JH.

Unusually well studied and well thought out. Evidently someone who's actually researched what he believes in.

Allow me to preface what im about to post with a simple summation: the desire for something to be true or the individuals belief in its truth claim does not in fact add any more validity to the claim. Or to make a more pop culture reference, well you know, that’s just like, your opinion, man. While others have made comments that the consistency implies relative truth compared to other sources, I remain unconvinced that it is an overly significant factor in deciding the validity of truth claims of any religion.

One final addendum: I am not seeking “the answers” as you suggest in this portion of my life. I happily discuss topics on my own volition when it suits me. Do not think that simply because I don’t feel the need to search for philosophical answers that I am attempting to flame you, because I am not. Forgive me for no quoting back and forth, in the interest of brevity (a funny idea I know) I chose not to. I have attempted to follow your paragraph form whenever possible.

An initial comment that I might make is you are arguing far too emotionally, though perhaps it is understandable given your attempting to make a defense of something incredibly important to you. However I find you could make a more persuasive case if you didn’t refer to things like opening a can of worms, or bringing this upon oneself. While I can see you arguing perhaps even effectively that the sinner is repelled by the light, I would expect that if you were attempting to bring people to what you are calling (at times accurately so) a positive message, that you make far more positive references than negative ones. However I accept the possibility that the very nature of what appears to be your particular blend of the faith can have a difficulty reconciling the desire to bring others to what you’ve found with other perhaps less positive motivations.

To start with your first verse. I believe you have started off on the wrong foot here, as you are making a perhaps inaccurate but necessary assumption. While rule leads to potential choices, the simple creation in the image of something, does not imply that it carries the same capacities as the original, especially if you chose to take it more literally than figuratively (which frequently in your post you tend to do). There is very little if anything from there to take immediately and turn to will, without doing necessary mental gymnastics. I believe you are forcing God into a rather small box by claiming awareness of the desires and wishes of God. Other religions, even Judaism have provisions that suggest we can know far more about a creator than you seem to suggest. While you could argue perhaps from later texts that you can know God, realize it is certainly not the only impression that is drawn from the text you are reading from.

I also believe you verse from Peter can be viewed under a different interpretation. There are many instances throughout the texts that suggest that God was not always long suffering toward all. While you could argue that we have little right to decide what is best or worst in terms of God’s long suffering nature, you frequently in the rest of your post make value laden claims about God’s intentions. While this is understandable given your stance in general, it should be noted that is rather difficult to discuss critically any of religion if we always adopt the stance that it is unnecessary to make allowances for God or to question, because of provisions like these which are paradigmatically assumed to be true, incorrectly so.

I believe the Satan story you bring up is one of the weaker elements of your post. You make too many claims here that are completely conjecture at best in my opinion and at least from my perspective is a quite intellectually dishonest way to present God. In as far as I have ever had it explained, the creation and purposes of cherub angels and human are conceived of differently in Christian thought. Yet you bridge the gap between them entirely if not more so, by positing correctly that it is understood that Lucifer was seen to be blameless. To assume that God had foreknowledge of all of the actions of the morning star and yet only offered to counsel him seems inconsistent. IF angels did not have free will, and had a purpose of servitude, why would God allow Satan to corrupt so many. Did God care so little for the other creation? Also within the context of what we claim to know (from the judeo-christian framework at least) the greatest punishment of sin is separation from God (hence the name). To assume that God did something benevolent when in fact under our framework this is the least benevolent thing that could have done, seems to reflect a great amount of fudging of the doctrine to fit an argument.

While you may wish to immediately dismiss the many pragmatic but not necessarily strong theological objections to the garden of Eden story, that doesn’t mean they cannot be discussed. In the interest of brevity, it is not simply the creation of a tree of knowledge that implies that God did not always choose to act benevolently or was not always omniscient. Rather it is the failure (an astonishing claim I know) of the creator to deal with the insurrection in a fashion that would allow for God to remain in communion with the beloved creation, along with a failure to be attuned to the location in which humans resided, along with the enacted punishment for as you suggest (at least under your framework) acting in a way that was consistent with the idea of being in the image of a creator. Surely if God thought free will so important in its own perspective to bestow it on a creation, he would not punish it in the first opportunity it had to manifest itself? Nor would God so greatly overreact to punish the entire following history of his favorite creation because the first two individuals were 0/1 in good decision making? Again the only real answer to this is to give a free pass or make unnecessary qualifications that don’t fit within how the story is originally presented.

Moving on again we have to make a choice about how much to look the other way in terms of God’s actions towards the creation. We are told to accept a story (that while intricate, especially in the chain of events) forces us to acknowledge a far more selfish, less benevolent creator than anyone would like to take on first glance. Consider the following: Humans are first created, perhaps with or without free will. They are in state of eternal communion where the creation is supposedly in union with the creator and the creator in union with it. Instead of continuing on in what would seemingly be (from our perspective) eternal bliss, God chose to allow the fall, with certainly some knowledge of the failure that was imminent if not complete knowledge of it, so that God could make what would otherwise be an unnecessary sacrifice that would never reconcile the union completely, forcing individuals into eternal separation. In the wisdom of lolcatish grammar “wat?”. Whilst there are certainly theological defenses for this, I don’t really believe you are presenting very many of them. All of these chains of events (certainly taken from the perspective of a non-believer) seem to suggest if not imply that for these events to occur either God is not always benevolent or God is not omniscient. It would be possibly that God could still be omnipotent, but given the flipping nature of God’s will out of such a starting chain of events, why should the individual assume that God will be consistent. It certainly seems inconsistency is a far easier position to maintain than consistency in the initial stages of God’s relationship with the creation.

At this point I believe we reach a more difficult impasse as we are no longer throwing around more theological concepts and now dealing with actual miracles which take far more faith to believe. Essentially you are hinging everything on one individual in history meeting a specified number of prophecies, and I am assuming until stated otherwise that he must meet them all. While you cite the spontaneous birth of a virgin as the main example, under your logic I believe he would have to fulfill all of them, some of which are on more shaky ground (as is my understanding at least) in historical circles. There regrettably isn’t a whole lot I can say on this subject (and probably in much more of the post), as you are riding everything on a prophecy that I believe does not stand up to critical inquiry. However this is quite likely to be the critical point for you so I will no belabor it, but I believe you must realize this is far less set in stone than you are claiming.

Im also curious about your particular religious history here, as the way that you refer to Jesus after the birth suggests that you do not equate him to be part of a three person trinity. While I suppose I could be incorrect in my analysis and you are using a few different verses where Jesus refers to his father to justify the way you are posting, the manner in which you refer to Jesus’s divinity seem unorthodox.

I find your justification of Jesus eventual claim that no one comes to the father but by me all the more remarkable given the way you describe Jesus triumphant birth. If Jesus has broken the communion with the Devil, which would have to assume is under the express desire of He and the Creator (either as part of a trinity or not) to reconcile the gulf between God and the Creation, why on earth would there be a restipulation? Seemingly the benevolent action of the creator is immediately countered by something that is at its essence not at all benevolent. Wise men said to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results is madness, if God is hinging what we assume must be the most important of all commitments (as many were taught the loving paternal aspects of the relationship between God and Humans) on free will after it clearly did not work the first time around, what does that imply about God, or at the very least about our perceptions of him? Also, where was the authority before, why would God cede such an important authority, even for a moment, if this is the most beloved of all creations? I believe this could be further noted as far as the perhaps misconception that a Christian God is necessarily a benevolent one.

The gift of heaven is not a free one, as it requires choice. A free gift would resemble a more universal election with less condition. To require something, even the choice (bolstered perhaps by election as it was – though this clearly presents problems unless it’s a universal election)means that this is not so much something that is given as it is bartered for. While theres nothing wrong with this I suppose on its own, that isn’t how it is really presented. Certainly there are many arguments that can be made against this however, but considering we are talking more about deliverance instead of some of the other potential forms of salvation understanding, it seems prudent not to try and add to an already tl;dr.

While I understand anecdotal stories are incredibly important to issues of faith, they do not make a communion with a creator involving free will make. I have known many people of faith and those who are not faithful who have had wonderful and terrible things happen to them. I know many more who have had enriched lives through faith and equal numbers of those who have done so without. I believe while you make an impassioned case that it doesn’t mean that this case need be accepted nor that we need to accept the implications of it.

got tonkaed wrote:An initial comment that I might make is you are arguing far too emotionally, though perhaps it is understandable given your attempting to make a defense of something incredibly important to you. However I find you could make a more persuasive case if you didn’t refer to things like opening a can of worms, or bringing this upon oneself. While I can see you arguing perhaps even effectively that the sinner is repelled by the light, I would expect that if you were attempting to bring people to what you are calling (at times accurately so) a positive message, that you make far more positive references than negative ones. However I accept the possibility that the very nature of what appears to be your particular blend of the faith can have a difficulty reconciling the desire to bring others to what you’ve found with other perhaps less positive motivations.

With respect to the comment about can of worms and even asking for this and such, these comments may not be needed here. However, I am on several forums and on at least all of those there are rules about posting passages from the Bible without expressed intent or that it must be asked for. So, I was being clear, by habit, and stating that this thread opened up to having this information posted here. Again, this forum seems to be more open about that and it may not be necessary.

As for the rest of what you posted, I have many things to say, but I am not sure if I should say them because you said that you were not seeking "answers". And as I have just arrived at work, I can not post a reply at this moment. So, here is what I will do. If I misunderstood the portion about not seeking answers, then let me know and when I return home latter tonight I will post a reply. Fair?

JH

I suppose a clairification is in order. I am far more reticient to discuss religion these days, mostly because the questions do not interest me as much as they did before. I am probably ok to discuss though i am probably on the otherside of the world from you so occasionally ill need time. While i certainly would appreciate any effort you would make in sharing your testimony allow me to interject that i am familiar with many of the concepts and passages that you would probably bring up, as i share portions of the religious history that your suggesting.

However if you would like to discuss some of the issues, i will do the best i can to offer my opinion if you are interested.

william18 wrote:

Simon Viavant wrote:

Gregrios wrote:

Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.

Nothing like starting a thread where the very first comment is a bold face lie.

If you program a computer to surf the web, and that's what it does, is it the computer's fault for being sinful by surfing the web. So you're saying that 6,000 years ago two people ate a piece of fruit and because of that we have all consciously chosen to be sinful little bitches? It all makes sense now.

Actually our sinful nature was caused by Eve eating the fruit.

Read what happened after Adam ate the fruit. Eve's eyes opened at the same time as Adam's, not when she ate the fruit.

Hologram wrote:

Gregrios wrote:

Simon Viavant wrote:God designs humans to be sinful, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness, then promises to never do it again, then impregnates a woman and is born as her baby and sacrifices himself to himself to atone for the sinfulness he created in humans, then commits genocide on them for their sinfulness as he promised never to do again.

Nothing like starting a thread where the very first comment is a bold face lie.

Sin is and always has been code for free will.

Sin began with a lie, not free will, which, unfortunately, has become bound to the subject. The lie was that by defying one very simple rule, that man could "become like gods", when, in essence, man was created to be amazing representations of God, which made becoming like gods a pointless affair. So "original sin" is born of a lie and a forfeited birthright. It was God's goal from then to restore to us, for we cannot do it ourselves, that birthright. Through the cross, the gates of heaven are open and the birthright is restored.