|
Post by necroshine on Jul 17, 2006 19:14:57 GMT -5
Disobedient or evil all the same when it comes to god. God is great why would you want to do anything but tell him how great he is? I’m sure if you people will start telling god how good he is I’m sure he will reward you in time. And as far as out of the box thinking goes, its not going to happen I’m happy in the box. I’m happy being in gods presence. Don’t know why you wouldn’t want to be there. What afraid of living forever?
Really like before you will have to show me where in the bible it says that. Before I listen to what any atheist says that is in the bible you are going to have to show me proof you guys seem to want it in everything else. So you have to prove what you say before I respond to it.
Oh yea! That’s it. The devil is going to liberate you right into hell. go right ahead you keep thinking that, you commmie.
’
If my kid needs punishing I will forgive him just likes god forgives me. Also what do you mean he is already dead? The devil was never human and never alive like we are so he could never be dead.
(guys I was going to say something really fu*ked up right here but I didn’t because I want this to not get taken down. but if you care, pm me and I’ll tell you that way.)
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Jul 18, 2006 8:03:36 GMT -5
Wow I have rarely met a person who admits to being self deluded much less one who will admit to likeing it. Congrats. I like thinking, I dont like the idea of not. I also cant think inside your box because frankly it just goes against commen sence.
Ok no problem read Genisis. God told man do not eat of the tree of knowledge. (any one see a problem with this just to start off) Before eating of it man was dumb. Just like you all man did was worship his Master. Now on to the fact that God needed nothing. Any class in theology you could ever take in Catholic or Christian teaching will tell you this: God is Omnibenevelent, Omnipotent, etc. It is because of this that your God needs nothing, and wants for nothing. Ergo God did not need to creat Man. Once again if you think I am wrong consult Genisis or a Preist.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 18, 2006 8:42:43 GMT -5
This is a strict bias based on the belief that the Bible is correct. The Bible is God's propaganda tool, we don't believe in the Bible's infallability so therefore we have no reason to agree that disobedient is the correct term. Disagreement is a matter of perspective and one I prefer because if you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you are disobedient.
Again, with hell, this is an assumption that disagreement sends you to a place of punishment. There is no call to punish people that disagree with you if you are a benevolent God.
And humor on hell:
Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
"First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.
Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:
If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."
The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.
Yes I do. It bothers me that a God that creates sinless man tells them to not do something but man can still "sin" by being disobedient and eating a piece of fruit that makes him "sinful:"
"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." - Genesis 3:4,5
"The serpent deceived me, and I ate." - Genesis 3:13
Eve did not know good from evil and did not know she was being deceived until after she ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge. So, man was punished for not knowing they were being decieved by a creature they had not been warned about and could not have known was evil because they did not know what evil was. Doesn't sound like a God I'd even want to know because to me they look like they were set up by a God that must have known they were going to be deceived.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jul 18, 2006 17:19:38 GMT -5
Very good. Lets talk about spell check now. But I guess it doesn’t make SENSE to use it. Ok that was low. I’m sorry. Please forgive, even if you don’t I know god will so I’m ok with that.
That is you trying to pull that statement from the bible. You will have to show me where it says that god only created us for his amusement. I know you can not find it. That is why you have not given me the passage. Don’t try to use any of your “thinking outside the box” on me. I know the truth and any of that thinking is just thinking outside of the truth. I will have none of it.
Now for you snafui The bible is the truth. What is your problem? The sooner you come to accept it the better you will start living.
I have thought about this. At one time it bothered me. But now I know what is going on. You forget that eve was told by god to not eat it. You child doesn’t know to not break things. You tell them and they do it anyway. You still have to punish them. So to say that eve did not know that is false god had told her not to do it. She did it any way.
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Jul 19, 2006 1:11:17 GMT -5
Okay not dead...but i ment that he wasn't killed by god because he wasn't technically alive. And obvisally god doesn't forgive his kids so you would be able to follow his example. It's seems a bit hypocritical that he can forgive us his "flock" but not any other "person" he created since the devil is still in hell. What is really the difference if he created all of us anyway?
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 19, 2006 2:18:27 GMT -5
Really, let's see about that...
These are the rules to forming the canon:
To be considered to have come from an all-powerful God, a book must meet certain requirements.
1) First, it must be transmitted to us accurately from the time it was originally written so that we may have an exact representation of what God said and did.
- There are a great many errors in the Bible with intentional mistranslations and contradictions (no I'm not going to sit here and list them for you).
2) Also, it must be correct when it deals with historical personages and events. A book that confuses names, dates and events has no right to claim it comes from an infallible God.
- The Bible is no more accurate for historical figures that the Harry Potter series. Jesus' existence is in serious question along with Moses just to start. 3) Furthermore, any revelation from God should be without any scientific absurdities which would betray that it came by mere human authorship.
- Maybe we should just start with the concept of creation itself on this one?
This has no bearing on the argument I made. You are back to making the assumption that disobedience equals evil. And by following that logic then she couldn't have been disobedient because there was no evil in her because she was pure and sinless.
And on your last sentence in the quote, no you don't have to punish them, they made a mistake. If every child were punished for every mistake they would be so neurotic by the time they were five that they would turn catatonic. God punished sinless creatures because they were deceived by a creature that they had no way of knowing was evil; in order for them to know that the "serpent" was evil would mean that they would have had to eaten the fruit already. This can be surmised by what the serpent said to Eve about the fruit. It was tempting her with something she didn't have already, the knowledge of good and evil.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jul 19, 2006 6:24:05 GMT -5
Yes and this book being written in many languages and being believed by millions of people is all the proof I need. That is real world proof. Do I need to go else where? No I don’t think so. If after so many years if the book was false then people would turn away from it. Example the Koran. Less and less people turn to the Koran. They are coming to the Christian side everyday. You should too.
You can disobey someone and still be innocent. That doesn’t take away from the fact that god told them not to do it before hand. You want to say that they didn’t know what they was doing. I would agree with you if it wasn’t for the fact that god told them not to do it before hand. For that there are consequences.
The devil chooses to be in hell by trying to take power from god. Do you think that shouldn’t go unpunished? God gives you everything you need and still you turn your back on him. I don’t blame him for acting the way he does. I think I would do the same. I mean if I gave my kid a place to live and they spit in my face and tell me that they don’t love me then they will be kicked out of my house. You would do the same thing.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 19, 2006 7:57:59 GMT -5
You do not have kids. You love your children unconditionally you don't kick them out of your house because they disagree with you, or because they don't love you back, or even for spitting in your face. This would be a sign of a parent that is need of guidance. This would be a sign of a God that is not omnibenevolent.
Nice thought to have if you wish to live by faith alone as the Bible says, but God also tells you to study the Bible to show yourself approved. People, en masse, once believed that the world was the center of the universe and that everything revolved around Earth. This is a typical arrogance of mankind that was proven to be wrong by someone studying the cosmos. When the majority of the world does not believe in the Bible and just because it was written in various languages does not make it the word of God. I know you read my other post about Babel; if it was such a holy writ, then why do the books of the Bible not come from around the whole planet not just one region? This comment of yours was not part of the rules to establishing the canon. It is the rules that must be inspected and used for discussion; blind faith is not an argument.
So, if God told them to not do it, but they had no knowledge of good and evil how should they be held accountable? They had no mental capacity to know they were being "bad," so, why permanently punish all of mankind for a behavior you cannot understand? In the United States you cannot be put to death if you do not have the mental capacity to understand what is going on, but God, mind you being omnibenevolent, punished a creature He created that was not designed for knowledge of good and evil. God did not give them the capacity to understand what they were doing and then punished them for their behavior. So much for omnibenevolence.
How can a created being by God take power from the omnipotent? The Devil wished to be exhaulted like God not take His power (Isaiah 14:14.) So anyone that wishes to be like something better than what they are should be punished? Anyone that is not content with their status in life should be punished? And God did not give Adam and Eve everything they need because they needed to know good from evil to not do what they did.
It is not good to punish an innocent man.... - Proverbs 17:26
So, God didn't follow His own inspired Word?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon*of*Heaven on Jul 19, 2006 8:15:46 GMT -5
Ok for this to be correct then the Atheist/ Agnostic population would have to be decreasing. However it is increasing, so this dose not hold water.
Ok for the second time I will explain this. Lets for a second say that Adam and eve were real, before they ate from the tree of knowledge they were incompetent and without the ability to think. in short without knowledge. Then a serpent comes up and tells them to do something, to a person who is completely without knowledge they would have no choice but to do as they are told, because they would not know. God/ Serpent, makes not one iota of difference to some one without knowledge. Without knowledge they could not possibly differentiate.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jul 20, 2006 5:24:15 GMT -5
ok guys i can not argure this anymore. all i can do is start side stepping what you say and redirecting the subject to what i want it to say. christans are good at that but its not the way to debate anything. plus i also don't want to get too graphic i started to onece or twice stopped. guys thanks for the agument but i'm tapped. think of this as you converted an atheist into a stronger atheist. it was fun. thanks
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jul 20, 2006 5:38:53 GMT -5
Snafui, I really don’t agree with this. True I don’t have kids but I have had my fare share with them. Now you do have to love them more than your self but unconditionally I’m not even so sure about. You can only let them run over you so much, when something has to be done. And when the child turns to a mature age and still doesn’t care what he does to your house and has no respect, you have to do something. Now you might be going through the same thing I hope you are not. But in the situation something has to be done. What are you going to do let them wreck your house? I have never had unconditional love and never will. Do you have any children? I hope they are well behaved. i also hope you don’t go through what I have had to go through. Sometimes you have to be an ass. Sometimes you have no choice. You don’t let someone take advantage of you even when its your children.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 20, 2006 8:18:15 GMT -5
We are talking about children. When they become adults you treat them differently, but still love them unconditionally (this is a healthy dynamic within nature, if a parent does not love their children unconditionally then something is wrong). If an adult is destroying your house you can have them leave as would be appropriate, but when they are children you can't ask a four year old to leave because they are a terror in your home. Children by nature are rebellious and often test the boundaries of their environment, at times you have to discipline them for this; on others you expand their boundries. You increase those boundries because they are maturing and can have more responsibility.
Adam and Eve were less than children when it came to mental capacity and God treated them poorly, following the Garden of Eden story. For God to punish two people for a behavior they could not comprehend is reprehensible; Adam and Eve could have been admonished for their behavior, but to do such a harse punishment (remove them from the garden, kill one in five women in labor, force them to now work for their food, and introduce death) for an act they cannot be held responsible is a God I don't want to know.
LOL, go read my introduction, I'm nonny's father.
Yes, it was/is. This board is great and I've been enjoying the debate and insight that it offers.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jul 20, 2006 17:26:24 GMT -5
I don’t think unconditional love exists. I really don’t. animals don’t have it. I have never meet a human who has it. That I know of. I mean if it is unconditional then they would be able to run over you without any limit to the actions. I know children 10 or so that had to be sent off away from the house because they would not mind. Yes something is wrong with them but it still had to happen. No amount of love would solve that problem. That is the only point that I’m arguing on. “unconditional love” I just don’t see it. Maybe you have it good for you. But in my little bubble I have never seen it and I don’t see a way it would be helpful.
|
|
snafui
Seasoned Citizen
Posts: 169
|
Post by snafui on Jul 20, 2006 18:50:25 GMT -5
It comes from being a parent. A child can be incorrigible but the parent will still love the child. Discipline does not dissapear because of this type of love, in fact, if you love your children you will discipline them appropriately. There are many cases where a parent has not done this and it causes problems later in life, but you have to be a responsible parent when you do have those feelings.
When a child is beyond a parents help, like I was, you do need some more professional help. I was sent to boarding schools, starting in the second grade, because I was such a discipline problem; I was kicked out of the school district. This did not change the feelings my mother had for me in any way. She did what needed to be done because of those feelings.
I love my daughter, nonny, unconditionally. That doesn't mean I approve of everything she does. I accept her the way she is whether I like her behavior or not. I have disciplined her appropriately and I've also let things go so she can learn on her own. And look how she has, and is, turning out.
|
|
|
Post by necroshine on Jul 20, 2006 19:27:06 GMT -5
Snafui, I agree with you 100%. Now I know I am not a father. Its for a personal reasons. But I have been a child I have been everything else under the sun pertaining to men. But what you say sounds just like what a Christian would say about god. Now if I’m going to argue that god can not be all loving and everything else he is supposed to be but is not. That goes right into my stance on unconditional love. That is an absolute with no wiggle room. Unconditional love means you can never turn your back on them. I have seen people who do disserve to be turned away from. True enough I was not the parent of the child but I did hear it from the parent. i hope you see what I’m saying. I’m not saying you don’t know what you are talking about. i have a problem with the concept of god just like a have the same problem with absolutes in the way we should behave. Like morals. But that is a whole different topic.
|
|