God made Adam, and while he made him he knew that Adam would eath the apple. However he continued to make him in the same manner. Therefore it is logical to assume that he wanted Adam to betray him.

Unless of course you believe god made a mistake, and ended up with something he didn't want. Or you believe he was powerless to change the way that Adam behaved. But I don't think christians would place eithor of those limitations on god.

There is some truth to that except that God did not make Adam and God did not make a mistake because the return to Eden was already created in Gen. 1 and paved in Gen.2 and it was not until Gen.3 that Adam was created.

Amos

Amos,
I don't think I understand that one eithor. What is "the return to eden" "paved"?? You also said "God did not make Adam"

I may be dense, but I need some clarification on those statements.

Sincerely
David

Amos has been smoking too much herb created in both chapters 1 and 2. His mind is still trying to grasp the Gay/God thing. Give him some time and he will start coming down soon.

I think I understand you logic:
Let's see, I knew before my daughter was conceived that people invariable die. Knowing this, my wife and I continued to have sex in an attempt to create my daughter. Therefore, it is logical that we want my daughter to die. So, in a nutshell, we had a child with the express purpose of it dying?

Well, I guess I can't argue with logic like that.

If you could prevent your daughter from dying, would you?

On the contrary, death is a necessary consequence of something good--life. However, there is no good event such that betrayal must follow, and if it is a necessary consequence, then God is powerless to prevent it.

If you can show that both of those conditions are incorrect, then I would say your analogy works, but as is, it appears to be a very weak analogy.

I can keep her from dying, by dening her the chance to be born.

And God could have prevented Adam making a decision by eliminating the concept of choice. Would that God be more appealing to you?

Dude, that is laughable.

Your analogy is so weak, I feel trivial even responding. Basically, I am not god, I don't have the power of god, therefore it is beyond my controll that anything bad or good happens to her. If god's power is limited as mine is, then perhaps you analogy will work, otherwise it is shit.

Before you get sarcastic about something, make sure you know what you are talking about.

You premise was:

God knew what was going to happen - Adam's disobedience.

God chose to create man anyway knowing this would happen.

Therefore, God did it to obtain that result.

You logic holds true only if every one of these statements are true. I have no problems with the first two conditions. It is your third assumption that is fatally flawed - at least until you can eliminate all other possible reasons for God to have created man knowing that he would be disobedient. You inability to think of an alternative reason does not preclude the existence of such reasons. You failure to account for these other possiblities is what makes your conclusion so exceptionally weak.

I used the same exact logic (including the failure to account for alternative reasons for my actions) in my analogy. I knew what would happen - she would die. Having this sure knowledge, I chose to procreate anyway. Since I knew the outcome, and made the choice anyway, then I, too, must be making the choice so that I can have the outcome - the death of my child.

My argument is weak only because I am following your pattern. It is the pattern that is flawed. That was my point. And you saw it in my analogy which followed your pattern. I'm sorry that despite the fact that you can see the same exact flaw in another, you are unable (unwilling?) to see the same flaw in your assumption.

Save your insults and characterizations for your other little playmates. They are much more effective with those in your peer group who have not yet been to high school.

[This message has been edited by RugbyJJ (edited April 18, 2001).]