Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Worst disaster in U.S. History

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 9101112>
Author
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4779
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 10:33am
Free will...
 
We all get to make our own choices.
 
God GIVES us the choice of accepting his Son's blood to cover our sin...
 
For FREE, no church service necessary, no payment for the free gift, just accept him as your savior...
 
How is that "not nice" since it applies to all of us?
 
The original sin changed our DNA, that is why it applies to all of us, as anyone born after that had that sin nature.
 
If you can live a perfect life, without sin, you are fine...
 
Problem is, with a free will, we all choose to sin. That isn't "punishment" but our own choices, and the results of those choices is death. But, only if we don't accept that free gift that God offers to all of us without charging a dime, or requiring anything of us other than accepting the gift...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 10:39am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

The original sin changed our DNA, that is why it applies to all of us, as anyone born after that had that sin nature.


This is another interesting point to add on to my previous statements:

If something like this were true - that original sin, as in mythology, exists as a part of literal human DNA - we certainly haven't seen it in any of the results of a decade or more of intense genetic analysis. We have not seen such a thing pointed at, either. There are aspects of genetics that effect behavior, of course (Things like homosexuality), but not something that can be pointed out as an "original sin."

Why? Is God hiding it from us?


Edited by agentwhale007 - 14 July 2011 at 10:40am
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4025
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 10:48am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:


The original sin changed our DNA, that is why it applies to all of us, as anyone born after that had that sin nature.


So then we aren't made in God's image?

But honestly, we don't get to make our own choices. They were made by two people 6000 years ago and we are stuck with it.

Quote For FREE, no church service necessary, no payment for the free gift, just accept him as your savior...


Not true. You are coerced into accepting it on pain of your soul.

If you do not accept the blood of the lamb, you will not enter into heaven. That's pretty damn bad actually. The only way into heaven is through Son the Saviour, agian because of those two airheads 6000 years ago.

Now, EVERYONE else is going to hell. Including people who are faithful to the same God, and read pretty much the same holy tracts. Sorry for you. You gonna burn.

Quote Christianity represents about a quarter to a third of the world's population and is the world's largest religion


So the other 4.8 BILLION are not worth, I dunno, another burning bush or a self igniting offering?

That how much it sounds like the god of the bible loves humanity.

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 10:54am
It's worth pointing out to those following along at home that Kayback and I are voicing different concerns and opinions from two very different fields - fields that don't have much to do with each other aside from cultural studies / anthropology, in which the studying is much different.

Kayback is talking about concerns about actual stated Christian theological beliefs. Which is fine to discuss.

I am talking about the attempted and improper mixing of religion into science. Which is fine to discuss.

Our two points of debate don't have much to do with each other, though.

There is already enough conflation in this thread as it is not to clarify something like that.
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4779
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 11:52am
I think we need to look at the definitions of science for a minute.
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
 
 
 
Whale correct me if I am wrong, but according to your thoughts, science and God are two different things, and not tied in any way.
 
But, if you study something, and you know that it didn't just exist on its own, then something had to create it. The laws of science don't allow for things to just "poof" exist. Matter comes from matter, life from life.
 
No matter how many years you give matter, it won't just come to life on its own. Something has to happen to create life according to science.
 
So therefore the "science" that studies things that doesn't fit that criteria, what do you call that "science"?
 
I think DNA will show us a ton of things we never considered. It already has shown us that all of humanity started with Eve... which matches with the Biblical account (except for the timing).
 
 
As far as Kaybacks comments. I still contend that if you choose to live a perfect sinless life, you can do that without the need for Jesus's blood. We all have free will, so in theory, you could choose to live a sinless life.
 
(but none of us do...).
 
That is OUR choice, once sin entered the earth, the earth "fell" as before it was like paradise here on earth. today we can see that isn't the case anymore, and things progressively get worse morally, and physically over time.
 
We may increase technologically, but we are still flawed creatures, because of our sin nature.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 1:08pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

I think we need to look at the definitions of science for a minute.
 

Using definitions from www.dictionary.com for these kinds of in-depth discussions about science isn't going to be useful. 

I'd suggest, again, you look into how the modern scientific method works. Using general colloquialism or basic dictionary definition is not really going to do anyone any good when trying to talk about something like the modern scientific method in an in-depth manner.  

Quote Whale correct me if I am wrong, but according to your thoughts, science and God are two different things, and not tied in any way.
 

My statement is that science is not concerned with God, the existence of, etc. 

The scientific process seeks knowledge based on what can be tested and experimented upon, what can be analyzed and examined - God simply doesn't fit into any of these. God is by mythological definition a super-natural being. This is simply not applicable to a naturalistic-seeking process. 
 
Quote But, if you study something,

I know that you didn't mean it this way, but it's worth pointing out that "study" in scientific terms is not the same as casual "study." Science is, again, a process. 

Quote and you know that it didn't just exist on its own,
 

Ah, this is going the direction of life origin. Which is fine. But you should probably know that a lot more published material on the origins of existence is around that what you would probably assume. People have been working on explaining the origins of life for a while now - they've not simply twiddled their thumbs. And the study of such a thing is a complex beast. There is no simple "origin of life" experiment. Instead, there are thousands and thousands of smaller strings of study - think of them as puzzle pieces - that people are using to make a larger picture.  

Quote then something had to create it.


This is extremely false. The result of inconclusive data in the scientific process is again not "Well God must have done it." It means the data, at the current time, is incomplete and more tests are needed. 

Quote The laws of science don't allow for things to just "poof" exist.
 

Exactly. 

And science proposes no such thing. 

Religion, on the other hand, does just this. It's convenient when unexplained results can be chalked up to an omnipresent mystical being, which is how religion comes up with answers for just about everything unexplained. 

And that's fine. But it's not science. Science deals in the analysis, experimentation and study of the natural.  
Quote  No matter how many years you give matter, it won't just come to life on its own. Something has to happen to create life according to science.
 

This, to me, is a solid piece of evidence that you've not read much into modern advances in studying the origin of life. 

Again - you're fine believing that something had to "create" life. But it's not science. 
 
Quote So therefore the "science" that studies things that doesn't fit that criteria,
 

What criteria? 

Quote what do you call that "science"?
 

At the basis of what you're presenting, it's called the study of abiogenesis. It's something I don't know much about, to be honest. It involves way more physics and astrophysics than I an probably capable of understanding. 

The forumer Darur though, probably knows a lot about this stuff. 

Quote It already has shown us that all of humanity started with Eve...
 

There is evidence to suggest that we do go back to a common ancestral eve - a most-recent common ancestor. There is no evidence, however, that this is a mystical-Biblical "Eve" character. 

Science simply has no capability to suggest things based on super-natural mythology. 



Edited by agentwhale007 - 14 July 2011 at 1:09pm
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4779
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 1:23pm
exactly, because of their preconcieved notions, and the belief in secular humanism.
 
Kind of like asking the kid who is blind to describe a rainbow...
 
No matter how much testing, reviews, papers he reads, he still will never see it.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4025
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 1:26pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

We all have free will, so in theory, you could choose to live a sinless life. </SPAN>


And that is in direct contradiction to the Bible. In various places andin various forms.

I'm also very curious to notice when doubt is pointed at the veracity of the Bible, you are willing to listen to "experts". But in other field experts are only there to re-inforce preconceived ideas, and are generally wrong.

Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 1:31pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

exactly,
 

I still don't quite think you comprehend how the process works, based on things like: 

Quote because of their preconcieved notions,
 

What preconceived notions? 

Science is the study of natural things. Science is not meant to - and has no applicable mechanics to - explain the super natural. To have the end result of a lack of knowledge or evidence at the current time be the assumption that a mystical being must have caused it does an extreme disservice to both science and religion. 

Belief in the super-natural is your own choice. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. But it's not science and cannot be studied by science. 

Again I'll ask you - what kind of experimentation do you propose to "study God?" 

Quote and the belief in secular humanism.
 

Again. Science is the study of things natural - based in the concept of naturalism. Which is not the same thing as "secular humanism." 
 
Quote Kind of like asking the kid who is blind to describe a rainbow...
 

This is not an accurate analogy in the least. 

A better analogy would be you getting rather upset at your automatic popcorn maker for not properly baking a potato - It's asking something to do something it is not designed to do. 
 
Quote No matter how much testing, reviews, papers he reads, he still will never see it.

Most likely because it doesn't concern "him." 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4779
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 1:32pm
Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

We all have free will, so in theory, you could choose to live a sinless life. </SPAN>



And that is in direct contradiction to the Bible. In various places andin various forms.

I'm also very curious to notice when doubt is pointed at the veracity of the Bible, you are willing to listen to "experts". But in other field experts are only there to re-inforce preconceived ideas, and are generally wrong.

No it isn't a contradiction.
 
"so in theory"...
 
The Bible says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."...
 
In theory, someone could live a sinless life, and if that person laid down their life, for the sins of others, and the devil took that life. The devil would have to hand over the keys to death, hell and the grave that he got when he manipulated Eve and then Adam chose to eat the fruit and cause the fall of mankind.
 
Jesus did live that life... He did die as a perfect sacrifice (never sinned).
 
That is what the Bible says.
 
 
I will need citations to discuss your "expert" example, there is no way I am going to argue with a rocket scientist, or a nuclear scientist, or a medical doctor on brain surgery...
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4025
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 2:22pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:


Eve and then Adam chose to eat the fruit and cause the fall of mankind.


So they made the choice for all humanity? I don't get a say in it. It happened 6000 years ago. This is like you not returning your childhood library book and I have to pay the fine now.

"in theory" someone could not live that life. Because all humanity is tainted by Adam and Eve's choice every human ever born is born with original sin.

Jesus did NOT live that life, Jesus was not human. Jesus was the offspring of the Almighty and Mary. He was not born with original sin.

As for the rest of us wanting to be sinless
Quote I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:6


Quote Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."
John 3:3


You can't get into heaven without accepting the blood of Christ. Even if could live sinlessly.

Quote
I have mentioned a friend of mine who is one of the premeir scholars for antique texts. He is brought in whenever a prehistoric text is found (he worked on the dead sea scrolls as well)

So your friend is an expert in his field and we should belive what he says, but you find issues with every scientist in every other field.

You are introducing double standards into the discussion.

Your "scholars" can't be sacrosanct if our's are suspect.

The Bible has plenty of parables in it, and I honestly think the whole book is a parable. Look at stories children are told. When they are small and unable to process deeper meanings things like "the stork brings babies" are often used. When we have matured and can hold bigger concepts together those stories are put aside.

This is how the Bible feels to me.

It is a story for humanity to comprehend in it's infancy. We have matured as a species and are learning to look for deeper answers. With this search we have found many fascinating things. Some will say we have not found God. I think we have just found out more about how God works.

Still wondering where the burning bush is for the 4.8Billion people who aren't Christians. And what about those who have never sinned because they were not exposed to the word of God.

KBK

Edited by Kayback - 14 July 2011 at 2:27pm
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4779
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 2:43pm
No, Adam and Eve changed humanity with their decision. It didn't cause you to sin by their choice, we each choose to sin on our own.
 
That is why a baby who dies will go to heaven. According to your logic, those babies (too small to accept Christ) would not go to heaven... I think they do because they haven't chosen sin.
 
Christ was absolutely human, that was the point, that God came to earth and became man. He had to deal with everything we deal with, and he did it without sinning.

Proof that it is possible to live a perfect life without sin.
 
But, since Christ no one has lived a life like that... Hence "all have sinned".
 
You aren't paying for Adam and Eve's sin. You must pay for YOUR sin, just as I have to pay for MY sin.
 
There have been doubters all through time, even when Christ returned, (where the phrase "doubting Thomas" comes from) Thomas a disciple said unless he put his hands in the wounds he wouldn't believe it.
 
Did Christ not let him touch him so he could "prove" himself?...
 
John 20:
 
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymusa]'>[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

   But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

 
I have seen a "burning bush" (course mine was watching my arm be healed), and because of that experience I have shared with many people that instance. Some choose to believe and some don't. We all get to choose... (btw, Moses was the only one to see the burning bush, and yet, it is still in discussion to this day... even though others had to choose whether or not to believe that account, God certainly didn't appear as a flame in a bush to everyone... Only Moses).
 
I am still convinced if you ask God to prove Himself to you, He will.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4025
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 3:15pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:


I have seen a "burning bush" (course mine was watching my arm be healed), and because of that experience I have shared with many people that instance. Some choose to believe and some don't. We all get to choose...

Again, one out of 4.8 billion isn't very many.

Quote (btw, Moses was the only one to see the burning bush, and yet, it is still in discussion to this day... even though others had to choose whether or not to believe that account, God certainly didn't appear as a flame in a bush to everyone... Only Moses).

True, he did however have those silly little plagues to help him convince others though.

Quote Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin


What you are saying is original sin doesn't exist?

As for paying for Adam and Eve's mistake, if you take original sin out of the equasion, then we are still very much paying for their mistake.

Without sin in the world, we would not be tempted. Without being cast form the garden and God's presence, there would be no doubt.

I'm not saying I don't sin. I'm not saying I don't fall to temptation too often, I AM saying that *I* was never given the choice to live in Paradise and not eat the fruit.

Again, I'm not a doubting Thomas, I do believe in God the Creator, I do accept Him as my savour. I reject dogma as a form of forced belief.

Quote Christ was absolutely human, that was the point, that God came to earth and became man. He had to deal with everything we deal with, and he did it without sinning.

Proof that it is possible to live a perfect life without sin.


Except for the slight advantage that he was God, and able to perform miracles.

Please then explain God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit with regards to Deuteronomy 5:7.

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
FreeEnterprise View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not a card-carrying member of the DNC

Joined: 14 October 2008
Location: Trails Of Doom
Status: Offline
Points: 4779
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FreeEnterprise Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 3:48pm
Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:


I have seen a "burning bush" (course mine was watching my arm be healed), and because of that experience I have shared with many people that instance. Some choose to believe and some don't. We all get to choose...

Again, one out of 4.8 billion isn't very many.
 
 
citation needed...
 
I know of tons of people who have been healed, seen miraculous things, witnessed firsthand miracles that science could not describe, had NDE where they went to heaven. Just because people choose to ignore those many signs and examples doesn't mean they don't exist.

Quote (btw, Moses was the only one to see the burning bush, and yet, it is still in discussion to this day... even though others had to choose whether or not to believe that account, God certainly didn't appear as a flame in a bush to everyone... Only Moses).

True, he did however have those silly little plagues to help him convince others though.

Quote Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin


What you are saying is original sin doesn't exist?
 
I am not saying original sin didn't exist, of course they sinned. That sin cause man to change at that point, and all men after that had the ability to decipher good and evil, and all men (except Christ) were not able to live on earth without sinning. Hence their need for salvation and a savior. But, I don't believe that all babies have sin and will go to hell if they aren't baptized or "saved" as they are too young. When God talks about having "faith as a child" I think that is because they know inside that God is real. Only through life and "learning" do they stray from that belief.

As for paying for Adam and Eve's mistake, if you take original sin out of the equasion, then we are still very much paying for their mistake.

Without sin in the world, we would not be tempted. Without being cast form the garden and God's presence, there would be no doubt.
 
And once we die and go to heaven, that is what heaven is like, we have all knowledge and we KNOW of Gods love at that point, all answers will be given then.

I'm not saying I don't sin. I'm not saying I don't fall to temptation too often, I AM saying that *I* was never given the choice to live in Paradise and not eat the fruit.
 
but, you did have a choice to not sin, and yet, we all did...

Again, I'm not a doubting Thomas, I do believe in God the Creator, I do accept Him as my savour. I reject dogma as a form of forced belief.

Quote Christ was absolutely human, that was the point, that God came to earth and became man. He had to deal with everything we deal with, and he did it without sinning.

Proof that it is possible to live a perfect life without sin.


Except for the slight advantage that he was God, and able to perform miracles.

Please then explain God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit with regards to Deuteronomy 5:7.

KBK
 
So can we not perform miracles in His name today?
 
And if miracles exist today, why would people not believe as easily as they did when Christ was on earth?
 
 
 
God the trinity... Again another huge topic of discussion that could fill thousands of pages and still only touch the surface.
 
God is three parts, God the father. (Huge, Creator of heaven and earth sits on the throne) Then Jesus, his son, who he sent to earth as a sacrifice, but he was human... and divine at the same time. I don't understand how that works, but there it is.
 
And then the Holy Spirit which is a spirit that helps us communicate with God/Jesus.
 
Together they are one, as they all know everything all the time, but they handle different tasks.
 
Deuteronomy 5:7 is referencing God, assuming all three of course since they are one entity in three parts.
 
do I have all the answers about that?... of course not, but that is my understanding from my studies and readings over the years.
They tremble at my name...
Back to Top
*Stealth* View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Watermarked

Joined: 31 October 2002
Location: Ethiopia
Status: Offline
Points: 10715
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote *Stealth* Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 4:09pm
Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:

Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:


You have to remember, man has been trying to prove the Bible inaccurate forever, and yet, they haven't... The scripture has withstood more critique than any other book in the history of the world.

 

And yet... It still is accurate.

 


No, it is just so ambigious that you can draw any conclusion you want from it.

Original sin. So God's perfect origninal couple were defective? Why do WE get punished for it?

Surely those two should get punished, not the entire human race. I did not have any say in it, yet I was born going to hell. Unless I now accept something based on faith.

Honestly, he doesn't sound like a very nice guy, your god.

KBK


For the record; people have believed in Nostradamus's writings for ever too.
WHO says eating pork is safe, but Mexicans have even cut back on their beloved greasy pork tacos. - MSNBC on the Swine Flu
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 4:18pm
To address a couple of things that Kayback has mentioned-
 
1-Original sin. The idea of original sin goes back to God creating man in His image. I'm going to go back to philosophy and what I believe was Aristotle's ideas on what separates man from animal-Aristotle viewed what he saw as three classes of life-plants, animals, and humans. He created a list of what separated each one from the other, and came to the conclusion that it's all in how they survived. They all three essentially wanted the same things from life-food and reproduction.
 
Yet, they all three had different capabilities in order to accomplish this goal. Plants were stationary. They were the most basic form of life. But the animals, what separated them from plants was the ability to move around to find their food and shelter. Furthermore, what separated humans from animals is the ability to reason. Mankind could reason his way as to the most efficient source of food and shelter, going beyond the capabilities of the animal. Aristotle went further with this and coined the phrase "eudaimonia", claiming that you wouldn't know how successful your life was until it was over. But for Aristotle, reason and knowledge were the very basis for life.
 
This is pre-New Testament stuff. And I think it gives us great insight as to the Creation of mankind. I don't have time to dig them out, but many verses in the Bible point to us being created for companionship to God.  This is vital to understanding the WHY of original sin-a companion has choice. If God had created a "perfect" world, we would have been little more than slaves to perfection. It was the imperfection of choice that allowed sin into the world, and it was the sacrifice of Christ that allowed for a more perfect relationship with God. Without Adam and Eve's ability to make the wrong choice, and without an inbred sinful nature, man would simply perfect clones of God. Free will allows us to be much more than that, and hold a personal relationship with God on the basis of our own choosing.
 
2-The Trinity. I explain to the Trinity to people as such-One God who is evidenced in three forms. God the Father, who is everywhere at all times. God the Son was God the Father in human form, neccessary for the sacrifice. God the Holy Ghost witnesses to man and is how God communicates with man. They are all three very separate, and yet the same.
 
3. Those who are ignorant ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for their sins. I take this from the mouth of Christ.
 
Originally posted by John 9:39-41 John 9:39-41 wrote:

39And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. 
 
Until you've seen the Light, that is had your own inbred sin revealed to you in the form of Christ, you're not responsible for it. Babies don't go to hell, and the ignorant don't go to hell.
 
For those of you that find this contradictory to the Bible, someone is responsible for these people. The Church. In 2,000 years, there shouldn't be a corner of the world that hasn't heard the Gospel. For those that ask why the Rapture has been delayed so long, it was promised that Christ wouldn't return until the whole world has heard the Gospel. Yet, the church has dropped the ball. And those that have failed to do their part will be punished, I refer you to the parable of the talents. Everyone has been given their part, and everyone that wastes that role on selfish ideas and motives will pay the price in the end. I don't believe in a fluffy, friendly Gospel. I believe that attaching the name "Christian" to your life attaches a heavy responsibility beyond simply not sinning. The failures of the church will be called back on it, just as Revelation has pointed out.
Back to Top
*Stealth* View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Watermarked

Joined: 31 October 2002
Location: Ethiopia
Status: Offline
Points: 10715
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote *Stealth* Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 4:22pm
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

Free will...


Does not exist, according to Christianity. 


For the record; I was a youth minister, a worship leader, a national bible quizzer. I could, at one time quote nearly the entire bible verbatim. With that being said: the foundation of Christianity, the concept of free will is null and void by the concept of god himself.


In the bible: God is described as the following with no particular scripture in mind; "Omnipotent".

Which means: all knowing, all encompassing, infinitely knowledgable and correct. God is also said to be the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end, he exists at all times, and sees all time at the same time, and is never wrong.

This being the case: accordingly we (humans) have been created by god, and further, in gods image.


Now, if god is all eternal and all knowing, omnipotent as it were, that means a few things: It entails god being completely knowledgeable of the fact humanity would bring sin into the world, Lucifer would fall; hell would be created, people would be damned, etc etc.

More importantly, it means he knows our decisions before we make them, in fact he has known our decisions since the beginning of existence, which means I have been created to be damned.

Omnipotence does not leave room for unforeseen events.  
 

WHO says eating pork is safe, but Mexicans have even cut back on their beloved greasy pork tacos. - MSNBC on the Swine Flu
Back to Top
Kayback View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Ask me about my Kokido

Joined: 25 July 2002
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 4025
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kayback Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 6:06pm
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:


Until you've seen the Light, that is had your own inbred sin revealed to you in the form of Christ, you're not responsible for it. Babies don't go to hell, and the ignorant don't go to hell.

 


But that is the kicker right there. We are on an island, we are idolators, murderes and fornicators.

We go to heaven.

Some guy rocks up and claims to be the spokes person for a God, and tells us we must stop.

If we don't we go to hell.

So yesterday I could kill and eat my neighbour but not today?

Seems fishy.

KBK
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 6:10pm
This argument of free will in the light of omnipotence is a fairly old one, and one that there is really no good answer to.

But the Bible contradicts any and all ideas of predestination. Consider in the Old Testament when God repented of the evils he had considered placing upon man.

I believe that God has a PLAN for the future, but not necessarily a destiny. Let me put it this way-the future hasn't happened yet. It doesn't exist. Saying that in some way you can predict that which does not exist is silly.

God has a plan. The Rapture, salvation, the end of time, so on and so forth, much in the same way you or I have a plan of retirement. We know the how, and the why, but not the when. We're not predicting the future by saying we're going to retire, but we are predicting our own personal future.

God has not predicted or predestined a future. He's simply let prophets in on His plan, but even the Son of man doesn't know the hour of His coming.

It's God's plan and will for all to see salvation. But by free will you can remove yourself from that plan, and then you captain your own destiny. Then you can't blame God for the evils of the world, because the world chose to make their own plan.

People have created the vision of God we see now, not the Bible. People have set dates and times, twisted prophecy to sell it as fear mongering, but the Bible makes no guarantees other than that Christ will return, and there is a heaven or hell. God does not know which you will choose because the future hasnt happened and is nonexistent.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 July 2011 at 6:22pm
Originally posted by Kayback Kayback wrote:

Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:


Until you've seen the Light, that is had your own inbred sin revealed to you in the form of Christ, you're not responsible for it. Babies don't go to hell, and the ignorant don't go to hell.

 


But that is the kicker right there. We are on an island, we are idolators, murderes and fornicators.

We go to heaven.

Some guy rocks up and claims to be the spokes person for a God, and tells us we must stop.

If we don't we go to hell.

So yesterday I could kill and eat my neighbour but not today?

Seems fishy.

KBK
That's exactly how it is.
 
The guy who rocked up didn't claim to be the spokes person for God, he IS the spokes person for God.
 
It's not fishy, it's just fair. It would be quite unfair for God to punish the world for the failures of the Church. Again, this goes back to my post I just made about predestination. God PLANNED for the whole world to be ministered to, but the Church failed. When the church should have been multiplying it grew stagnant, and at some point human nature overtook the nature of God, and now here we are.
 
At all points killing and eating your neighbor was sin, and adultery was sin. But it was also your nature via your enviroment. The morals and ideas of God were not introduced to you, and you were following your own nature.
 
Man's nature is inheritly corrupt according to the Bible. It does not mean that unbelievers will, without fail, sink to the lowest common denominator. Corrupt simply means that there is bad present. It does not mean that the nature is without redemption, or wholly evil. This is another common misteaching that you'll hear in some "Christian" sociological teachings. Man is perfectly capable of morality without God-but it is, in the end, corrupted. Much like your computer works perfectly fine with a virus, but the evidence of the virus will be there until it is removed. This doesn't mean that your computer will be used for pornography or illegal purposes, your computer may live the rest of its electronic life as nothing more than a word processor. It could even be used for good, your computer could be used to save a life. But that doesn't eliminate the virus, and in the end, the computer will be destroyed with the virus present.
 
Now, there are those who teach that, until the Gospel is presented, man is held accountable for what he knows to be right or wrong. So if, let's say, the tribesmen in your example know by sheer human nature that cannibalism is wrong, and the commit it, then they are guilty of that sin.
 
I disagree with this view. It's not the sin that matters, it's the oppurtunity to repent. And without the oppurtunity to repent, one is not held accountable. It would be like the state holding me accountable for traffic tickets, but not giving me a place to pay them. This is unjust, and God is not unjust
 
The evils in the world are the world's going. When a child is murdered it is not a reflection of that child's innocence before God, it is a reflection of the murderer's choice. For this to make sense, it has to be understood that this life is not the point of the whole thing. It's the afterlife. So that child goes on to inherit his place in heaven, and is free. That child was not "punished". This is the pivoting point of the arguments I heard in philosophy.
 
People ask," Hoes does God allow evil in the world?" The world is evil. This world is not the point. The suffering we feel in this world is temporary, it's the afterlife that is the point. If you don't believe that, then there's no sense in attempting to argue it, because then the basis of the argument is false. This is, again, why it's completely pointless to debate God within scientific circles. I'll claim the rule of falsification here-if it can't be proved false, it can't be proved true. This is just as cyclical as it sounds-you're chasing your own argumentatitve tail when trying to disprove or prove religious beliefs.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 9101112>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.233 seconds.