NFLP

To all: The following was posted in Biblical Criticism. Layman stated he has no interest in responding and suggested I go elsewhere. He accused me of "diatribe"(see subsequent posts there). I was surprised, as it is my assumption* that he considers himself a divinely-annointed/appointed apologist and artful debator. I request that those who know him will ask him to reconsider. My questions may at first glance seem somewhat pedestrian but there is more substantive tack to follow [or so I hope].

*"When you 'assume' you make an ass out of me and Uma Thurman."--Al Franken

To Layman:

"If you torture your data long enough, you can get it to confess to anything." If Mark Twain knows that, then God knows that.
Free Will implies Informed Consent, which requires being supplied with the relevant data both pro and con. (It is doubtful Adam would've been queered by the apple-eating lady if he knew what lay in store.)

If Scripture is the work of an all-loving, all-knowing, all-just deity intent on edifying his precious creations, why do you suppose he made it all so esoteric?

Could he have made it "perfectly clear" so that every human instantly understood its every nuance and permutation?

Could he have avoided the ancient ignorance? Ex: Many Christians will say that Scripture is "God's Owner Manual for Humans". Scripture indicates that some women were persecuted to varying degrees solely for producing female offspring. A single sentence informing us that it is the male gamete which determines fetal gender, could've avoided milennia of needless unfair suffering for women. Does that omission trouble you?

And finally a moral scenario. A group of tourists have entrusted you as their guide at your offering. They think you have told them to go down a dark stairway which you know contains steps which will break away and lead to serious injury. You are well aware that they have misinterpreted your message yet you smile benevolently as they make their descent. Are you culpable for their injuries?

Jayhawker Soule

And questions are sometimes pretentious and leading and, as such, unworthy of response. Furthermore, since I consider myself a philosophical (metaphysical) naturalist, the questions do not seem to apply. And -- you're welcome.

BTW, I'd recommend future thread topics not be employed as ad hominem attack. I feel a bit like an interloper here.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>