rlogan

Good Lord what tripe. Hall of fame gibberish for sure:

Man's ideas about God change. Therefore it's been planned by God.


Doesn't follow, but one has got to be proud of dressing up a turd in such fine rhetorical silk here.

Most systematic tarot card readers put them on the table face up. But not all of them.



Excessive? Oh, that's being charitable. I don't see any point other than speculative musings about an egocentric sky-daddy.


Got to marvel at the energy expended on redundant piffle:

"If god knew everything and had what we call a knowledge of stuff..."

...then he would, like - know what to do. :thumbs:

Sven

I explained it several times. You failed to read my posts. Again: There was a colon. *shrug*

Close. That's the right topic, but I rather asked you to show that this claim is common among Christians (which is, paraphrased, what you originally said).

But it does not indicate that god already had this plan before the Fall.

Thanks for this information. Strange that I've never heard about this. :huh:

IIRC, you originally claimed that the fall was only an option, that god would have preferred for the fall not to occur. So apparently he did not know that it will happen.


I guess Chesterton is just making up some things to make a point (who the heck is this Chesterton?)

Quite simply: Because there's no evidence at all to indicate otherwise. Consciousness is associated with a functioning brain in each and every case we know of. If one wants to claims otherwise, he has the burden of proof.

To everyone who does not invent some things out of thin air to make a point. *shrug*

:huh: You said yourself that god wanted humans to have morals. The only way to get them was to disobey him. So he wanted A&E to disobey. Where's the strawman?

You can not have it both ways. Either he knew what will happen (and thus indeed had a plan for after the Fall), or he allowed for different outcomes.

Have you explained anywhere what exactly is just to held every human and every other living thing to the consequences of two of our ancestors?

See above. He wanted us to have morals.

Sorry, I consider it rather pointless by now to discuss anything with you. As I said, this is getting tiresome. As you may have noticed, I posted rather seldom in the last few weeks - I found out that I have much better things to do. So I'll follow Jack's way, snip the rest of this, and say "Bye".

[snip]

bfniii

could you please point out HOW my response is evasion or false? i provided a response which answers the question you pose.

how am i stonewalling when i am providing responses to you and you don't explain how you feel they are inadequate? it sounds like you are the one stonewalling.

i have provided several answers. i understand you don't like them.

timing is something i have asked you about on multiple occasions. you used the word immediate. why do you use that word?

i am not trying to represent an inerrantist position. i am trying to point out possibilities.

maybe because the people within the walls were the enemy or because they belonged to the enemy?

ok. we agree to disagree.

i have no difficulty with the passage whatsoever. i understand that God was describing specific actions that would be taken against tyre by Him.

allows us to do what? once again, you are being asked whether a particular act can be described as good or evil. for example, suicide bombers are altruistic to islamic extremists. are they right or wrong?

which brings us back to the original conflict. sometimes we act selflessly, sometimes we don't. why the inconsistency? if the social instinct exists, why isn't it effective in every case? there is an even deeper conflict. people have always fought for land. as one group grows in size, more land is required for sustanence. however, the expansion may encroach on another group's territory. is the encroachment right or wrong?

not at all. God told adam not to eat from the tree. adam was not ignorant.

the injunction itself is neither good nor bad, it is neutral. our response to it is either in compliance with the injunction or not. that is what is good or bad.

what false information? we know the consequences of our choices.

if the "God-implanted information" is ineluctable and compulsory, then we would be without freedom. you propose that God educate us on suffering to the extent that we would know it so well as to never choose it. the difference between that proposal and actually experiencing pain is mere semantics. God could give us some kind of foreknowledge of any painful consequences but that would be obviation and would constitute a violation of freewill. it is all coercive and in the end we would be stripped of a valuable human experience. concordantly, this dovetails with the above point that sometimes we cause others pain when trying to avoid pain ourselves. the converse is also true regarding altruism, we cause ourselves pain in order to relieve it for others. so, which information is God to provide us, that which saves ourselves or others? a very convoluted proposition at best.

we have that now!

whether it's "God-implanted knowledge" or not is irrelevant. it arrived in our brain by some means other than our choice. furthermore, your reply doesn't address the point that the pain we experience is cognitive information. if God puts it in our brain, we still experience pain.

why don't you expound on what problem you have with numbers 31?

i don't recall saying that.

i don't think you understood my response. i am maintaining that the passage in question does not refer to human sacrifice, except the part about holding the guilty accountible for their actions. that has been my position from the beginning. i did indeed provide support for that position by showing that:

first, note "this announcement imported NOT that the person was to be sacrificed." this contradicts your claim. second, a previous sentence that you conveniently omitted notes "the devotee accompanying his vow with a solemn imprecation on himself not to fail in accomplishing his declared purpose." the emphasized words outline that we are talking about someone devoting himself.

the first point outlines that the announcement does not indict a person to death-sacrifice. the second point outlines that the consecration falls on the person who has made the committment, not someone else. this should be clear enough to support that you are misrepresenting the passage by claiming it advocates human death sacrifice.

ok, we disagree. if you think genesis does not portray God that way, state your supporting verses.

ok, we disagree. i did show how the passage is interpreted by christians. you didn't show how that interpretation is incorrect. you merely claim it is. furthermore, there are other such references to Jesus in the OT so the christian case does not hinge on this one passage. i have repeatedly asked you to show why you support one group of jews over the other.

for the record, i provided a response and asked you to support your case. all you did was appeal to numbers and ask me to make your case for you.

ok, so support your claim. pick a commentary are show it is false.

it is not a case of "pretending". it is a case of interpretation. some of the jews got that Jesus was the messiah, some didn't. which group is right i ask you?

isaiah 53 is not the only OT messianic prophecy.

earlier, you set up the jewish scholars to be authoritative in regards to their religion. "I have already explained WHY the Jews (most of them) are more probably correct: because it's reasonable to suppose that they understand THEIR religion."

this stands in stark contradiction to the case you are now making that they are biased in their apology of their religion and that non-jewish scholars are actually the ones to be trusted in regards to the jewish-christian split. the fact of the matter is that even secular scholars are biased in their interpretation.

i have "tackled" the issue enough to know that there are more than two theories.

as i have said, since the flood can't be accurately dated at this time (supported by the wide range of theories), the issue is mere speculation.

i notice that in your commencement, you fail to account for several theories. one being biblical support for a local flood which is corroborated by a possible meteor at that time and corresponding "local" verbiagein the bible. another is that the geneaologies in genesis aren't meant to be a complete family tree, but an abridgement which is corroborated by the flexibility of the hebrew word "!b". given the above, there is just too much room for any speculation to have significantly more validity than any other.

i gave my specific reasons why i don't want to get drawn into another egyptian miracles discussion with you because you won't do the research to consider appropriate alternatives as outlined above. you'll just end up asking me to support both sides of an issue you brought up like you did with messianic prophecy.

i've been ready and waiting

for the record, you have:

• misrepresented my position on multiple occasions
• refused to do independent study of the egyptian miracles and the flood
• failed to provide support for your use of the word "immediately" in the exodus account
• failed to answer what is good or evil
• failed to answer why you think the jews are more correct than the christians regarding messianic prophecy. remember, you brought it up.
• failed to answer why you used an appeal to numbers regarding messianic prophecy
• failed to answer the special pleading employed regarding the jews being authoritative enough to know better than christians (who were jews, btw) the messianic prophecy but not enough to know the monotheistic/polytheistic origins of their own religion

this isn't a complete catalogue, but it is representative of some outstanding issues

bfniii

Book of Ezekiel

this is a point i brought up in a couple of other threads. how do we know anything from antiquity is true? i'm not asking about the scrolls/tablets themselves but what is written on them.

bfniii

certainly. i have provided several reasons why this occurs.

so a person should be exempt from any suffering until they are guilty of some infraction? first, why? second, what kinds of infractions are you referring to?

i have not said that God is incapable of producing those circumstances. what i have said is that they don't apply to us in this life. according to christianity, there are reasons why we experience suffering in this life.

i'm not sure i'm following this. have i given you a reason to believe i have that idea of God?

so far, the only support you have provided for this idea is that suffering exists. i have asked you why you think, if there is a God, He doesn't have a good reason for allowing it. additionally, what makes you think He enjoys it?

bfniii

RLOGAN! what have you been up to lately? i haven't heard from you in months. let's see what insightful insults you have for me this time.

yeah, it couldn't be that we are learning what His plan is from Him .

you've done better. ok, you're not warmed up yet.

i didn't expect you to have anything substantive to say here.

interesting. not sure what it has to do with the point. meds must be kicking in.

more vacuous typing.....

i was trying to explain it thoroughly for those who are "christian-challenged".

in the words of keanu reeves "whoa".

another slice of time well-spent, rlogan. thanks for contributing.

rlogan

Jail. Extreme wilderness supercub expeditions. Rampaging on a bulldozer. Eating moose every day.

If I wrote what I actually thought we'd be talking hall of fame moderation material.


Submit evidence. Like God, for example. That would be good evidence.

What's that sound? Oh - hell is freezing over.



Thorough? Words like "verbose" and "pretentious" come to mind.


I don't watch TV or movies so I don't know who this is.


[self-edited]

John A. Broussard

If god is all-powerful then god could prevent suffering without causing more serious harm as a result.

God does not stop suffering, even of the innocent, who you agree are indeed innocent, since how can embryos be guilty of anything.

Therefore god, being all powerful and being able to prevent suffering, but not deigning to do so, must truly enjoy watching the agonies of leprosy, spina bifida, smallpox, death by drowning in floods like the Indian Ocean tsunami, being crushed to death by the recent Kashmir earthquake, etc.

If you continue to believe that there is a good reason for suffering, which suffering your god doesn't wish to avoid, then I seriously question your moral character.

Jack the Bodiless

Update:

A week has gone by, and there's still no post from bfniii on the Alternative Biblical dates for the Flood? thread.

Meanwhile, a thread on Why do Jews deny Christ as the Messiah? has started in GRD.

I will keep bfniii on "ignore" until he posts on one of those threads.

Roland

When it comes to "errors" in the Bible, I think I've found two:

In the Exodus tale of the Ten Plagues, the Egyptian livestock and cattle keep getting wiped out, only to be brought back to life to be wiped out all over again by the next plague.

At the end of the Book of Joshua, the Israelites have conquered all of Canaan, effectively wiping out every man, woman and child who inhabited the land. Then, when we turn to the Book of Judges, we find that the Israelites have NOT destroyed all the Canaanites, and that they are still actually at war with them.

How do apologists deal with these obvious discrepancies?