Horse's Gullet

She had the choice to trust God or distrust Him, just like you or anyone else. Perhaps there's a reason you're fascinated with this story. You seem to be making the same mistake she did. Kindred spirits, and all. That puts you in with some pretty extraordinary folks...and some pretty ordinary folks. That puts you in the same group as everyone else in the world.

Believe or don't. It's entirely your choice. And, really, not for me to debate with you. It's not my job, nor anyone else's to convince you. You have it all at your fingertips. Debate with God, not folks on the internet. If you still feel you're right, so be it. But why do you feel compelled to drag others down into a dark place with you? Why, indeed.

Beastt

There is nothing dark about this "place". Logic is man's primary tool to determine truth and the story simply lacks logic. It's a paradox. No matter what you choose to believe, it violates some aspect of the story. Therefore, belief in the story constitutes disbelief in some key part of the story.

One more bit of evidence that it is man made by those who lacked the knowledge to see the paradox they created.

mudknot2005

Not to mention, the bible shows the brutality of man(and women) of that age, and the pagan heritage, for making a blood sacrafice to a god, the killing of the lamb. Not to mention that god demanded blood shed for all men to be saved. As you said its a paradox, but i don't think its restricted to only the first book.......... Unless your talking to an AiG rep.......... I would be interested in seeing the "Creation Museam" since i don't live far....... Mostly to see what fabrications they have made up.

Ophis

[QUOTE=Horse's Gullet]She had the choice to trust God or distrust Him, just like you or anyone else. [?QUOTE]
Did you even read our replies? Are you going to back up this assertion in any way, or just ignore the points made against it?

I find the story an interesting reflection of the choice between independent moral and intellectual growth, and blind obedience to God.

I would dispute that it was a mistake.

The group it puts me in, is the one which values logic above blind trust.

Amazing how quickly the Great Commission disappears sometimes. If you want me to believe in God, then you're going to have to debate with me, because I'm not going to follow a religion just because someone asks me to.

I'd love to debate with God, but I don't see Him around. If you can organise a debate between us, then I'll be glad to do that. Until then, I'm stuck with guys on the internet.

Because it's actually pretty bright here. The meaningless, despairing life of the atheist is a complete fabrication. I'm free to follow reason without being held back by a duty to believe in Christian ideas. I can abandon religious ideas in favour of better, more fulfilling philosophies. I no longer have a part of my mind telling me that what I believe is bollocks, that I used to be always trying to suppress.

All this has made me more content as an atheist than I ever thought possible as a Christian. That's why I want to show others that their belief is wrong; not to drag them down, but to show them how much they're being dragged down by blind belief.

RidingtheScree

sounds like a cop out


do you consider it necessary that thinking, of questioning is a sin, or is wrong in any way?


why is the necessity of it being wrong necessary, if that is the case.


whichever way you turn, you are making decisions without
"repressing" your decision making for some "natural law," because your making decisions, your holding decisions. If they were inherent and fettered, you would not be sentient. Even presuming something is, you know inherently that your making a decision, that the negation of a concept is always available. I challenge you to find in your head a way to get around the option of negation, of saying "no" to something; because if you admit it, you admit it and it makes decision making necessary, if you say no, you are in the process of negating, or saying no to something, showing you a hypocrite and as having the ability to negate God, showing the ability to negate anything. But negating makes negating true. You cannot avoid this. Your beliefs can be real, but your disability, your absolute belief is impossible, and the ability to never be able to say no, to be unable to deny, negate or reverse, is not true because in denying it you are merely supporting its existence. It is natural, it is inherent. You’re a posteriori ideas are not. If good is not corrodible, ultimate, than is not our ability to make a decision, to constantly analyze, inherently good?


You seeking to negate our ability to negate does not change the fact.


ne·gate
tr.v. ne·gat·ed, ne·gat·ing, ne·gates

1. To make ineffective or invalid; nullify.
2. To rule out; deny. See Synonyms at deny.