Originally posted by chickenlover98
exactly. gods a dick for even making evil. he knew human nature was curiosity. therefore he knew from the start they would take the fruit. duh
Originally posted by chickenlover98
thats rediculus. he set humans up to fail then. ur saying he didnt want humans to be happy in paradise. u just described the biggest ******* in the entire universe. i hope you can edit that because that is seriously the most retarded statement from anyone that ive ever heard
Secondly, coming from someone who makes the following grammatical ****ups:
--No capitalization.
--Lack of punctuation.
--No apostrophes.
--Misspelling "ridiculous."
--Use of "ur" and "u" to abbreviate "your" and "you," respectively.
...I'm more than happy to be judged as saying something "retarded."
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First of all, no, that is not at all what happened. If God didn't want us to be happy in paradise, He would have sent everyone to hell.Secondly, coming from someone who makes the following grammatical ****ups:
--No capitalization.
--Lack of punctuation.
--No apostrophes.
--Misspelling "ridiculous."
--Use of "ur" and "u" to abbreviate "your" and "you," respectively....I'm more than happy to be judged as saying something "retarded."
hey buddy, i dont remember this being a grammer forum. respond to my comments no matter what vernacular i use. i dont really care if its incorrect. not in the slightest. and why would punctuate or capitilize. it wastes time.
second you didnt answer my question. god set them up to fail did he not?
Originally posted by chickenlover98
hey buddy, i dont remember this being a grammer forum. respond to my comments no matter what vernacular i use. i dont really care if its incorrect. not in the slightest. and why would punctuate or capitilize. it wastes time.second you didnt answer my question. god set them up to fail did he not?
It's only a made up story. 😉 It doesn't have to make sense.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
hey buddy, i dont remember this being a grammer forum. respond to my comments no matter what vernacular i use. i dont really care if its incorrect. not in the slightest. and why would punctuate or capitilize. it wastes time.second you didnt answer my question. god set them up to fail did he not?
Take into consideration that some text can mean a few different things depending on how it is punctuated.
And to answer your question, yes. Christian denominations agree that God wanted humans to experience failure. Life without failure defeats the purpose of life. Overcoming failure defines success.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First of all, no, that is not at all what happened. If God didn't want us to be happy in paradise, He would have sent everyone to hell.
As a fellow Christian, I disagree with your logic. I believe God never intended for us to be free of evil or sin. There are many ways to learn and progress, but I believe trial and error to be the most beneficial. God was absolutely right in allowing the devil to tempt man.
Originally posted by Quark_666
As a fellow Christian, I disagree with your logic. I believe God never intended for us to be free of evil or sin. There are many ways to learn and progress, but I believe trial and error to be the most beneficial. God was absolutely right in allowing the devil to tempt man.
Originally posted by Quark_666
As a fellow Christian, I disagree with your logic. I believe God never intended for us to be free of evil or sin. There are many ways to learn and progress, but I believe trial and error to be the most beneficial. God was absolutely right in allowing the devil to tempt man.
So, god made satan knowing he would fall. You could say god made satan to fall. Therefore, god created evil so that man would have a chose. If that is the case, then god did set man up to fail, for our own good. 😉 😂 Christian mythology is so strange.
Absurd
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
He knew that humans would take the fruit because He knew all things before there was time...which is why He created the Christ--to die for sins that we might have everlasting life.
IronChariots.orgThis perfect God and his perfect law, according to Christian dogma, created imperfect beings who are incapable of living up to his law and has decided to punish them for this failing. In order to rectify this conundrum, this perfect God decided to create a loophole by which his imperfect creations can be granted salvation. By taking human form, he sacrificed himself, to himself, to circumvent a law he created.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well said.Would you agree that people have the right to be illogical and believe what ever they want? The problem is when they try to place their illogical beliefs into a format (science) where it does not fit. It reminds me of a kid putting a square peg into a round hole, and using a hammer to do it.
They have the right, certainly. But only up to the point where it becomes harmful to others. Christians trying to force their dogma into our political system is a prime example of this, not to mention the myraid divisions in the world that are created by organized religion, and is why religion on a larger level is akin to a plague....even while individual faith and belief can be a positive and admirable thing. Your scientific scenario is another example of this.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Do not see the big difference between the two? One is corporeal. One is not. Closing possibilities is not necessarily illogical, I haven't claimed as such. However, disbelieving in something just because it can't be proven is also limiting yourself. You don't have to believe it, but to toss it out and close your mind is stupid. Also, your snide remarks are laughable.
They aren't intended as snide. The ridiculous examples were to show how there isn't any difference between the absurd and many beliefs held by people.
And I never said I "toss things out". I've prefaced my words in this thread with the statement that all "truths" are provisional, pending further or contradictory evidence. So no, I'm not limiting myself by not believing something without evidence. I'm taking the most reasonable stance until something comes along that has enough validity to change my opinion.
So many people feel like others' beliefs need to be as rigid and dogmatic as their own. I'm open-minded in the truest sense, that I consider any possibility but require valid evidence to support it before I will consider it a plausible possibility (though I've wrongly been called close-minded for not believing certain things, despite having clear and valid reasons for not believing). Beliefs should be probable theories, which avoids both faith and illogical dogmatic structures that create division in the world.
Originally posted by Mindship
Absolutely: an unequivocal correlation of transcendent phenomena with the material world would be wonderful. But then, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 😉For me, the logical stance is, use what works.
This is what's valuable about scientific method. It seems to give us the best as-ifs going. But I prefer to hold onto that "we can't be certain of anything" as the cornerstone of my POV, and I move from there in a practical manner, hopefully to discover truth along the way.
A plane of colored glass changes the light coming through it, but it does not create the light.
Please understand: I don't knock the materialist position. It is a very compelling paradigm, it is very practical, only a fool, IMO, would deliberately disregard it. I just don't see the point of saying, Well, that's all there is. As I mentioned at the start, I personally don't see any practical value to atheism.
...we seem to be mostly in agreement, and you're obviously in command of your stance, so I won't offer dissenting views, because for the most part we seem in accord.
As for atheism, the decision to be one doesn't have to do with practical value. Everyone believes what they believe, and can't simply change it because it lacks practical value (though I'd argue that it does). It's just what I believe given the information available to me, which is quite a bit, even despite the subjective asterisk that we must assign to all existence.
But the practical value of it, to me, is that it is a system that values the skeptical "show me" attitude that is lacking in so many faith-based systems. It promotes reason and logic, as well as an understanding between sentient beings that doesn't require a deity or paranormal force to unite us. The word Atheist has a negative connotation (I use "non-religious" when I don't want to make as big of a splash) but many fall under the less-maligned umbrellas of secularism, humanism, or many other "isms" that promote these same ideals.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
...we seem to be mostly in agreement, and you're obviously in command of your stance, so I won't offer dissenting views, because for the most part we seem in accord.
Agreed. I also appreciate the fact that you offer your perspective in a respectful manner. Many miss the point that how a stance is presented can often carry nearly as much weight as the stance itself.