At 7/10/11 02:47 PM, LeonOfBlain wrote: I didnt shove it in your face. you clicked on the message board of your own free will
Really? And I'm suppose to take you seriously?
I call you out for a false dilemma, and your response is solely with regard to my ancillary characterization of your post - one which does not even necessarily mean what you took it to mean.
That's some slippery bullshit.
I would've probably give you its length width and height
Well. There you go. You've implicitly defined what a dimension is.
most people would just say "please clarify what youre getting at" if it was worded strange
This response follows from neither of the points you quoted prior to it.
I mean... please clarify how your reply is answering to either of the bits of my reply you quoted above it.
does that make sense to you?
No. Try it again with complete sentences and whole thoughts.
One again... I'm suppose to take you seriously? You know what my criticism was, and you came back with something even worse.
At 7/10/11 03:26 AM, LeonOfBlain wrote: is it really so hard to believe any of this is up for questioning?
No, but thanks for shoving a false dilemma in my face. But I suppose it's rule one of any pretentious ass to immediately consider anyone particularly barbed with their criticism to be closed minded to the nth degree.
I just want a greater understanding of concepts that I dont understand. You seem to have an understanding of dimensions so please if possible provide a basic description of what a dimension is. is it something that fundamentally affects all things? why is the argument that time may not be a dimension a valid argument? I understand why you're saying im jumping to some incorrect conclusions but I believe the best way to determine what something is is to figure out what it's not.
If I handed you a shoe box and asked you to give me its dimensions, how would you respond?
when you rule out the wrong you're closer to what is right.
Knowledge and presumption may be finite, but no, the relationship you're establishing is flawed when presumption may be generated to a virtually infinite end.
this isnt an english class its a discussion.
Yes, why should you bother making coherent arguments? It's a discussion!
if you dont understand what im getting at just say so. that way i can attempt a clarification. please dont bash an attempt to understand a concept by insulting intelligence.
Alright.
"consciousness as well as the world within computers are the world within electricity are the same type of dimension."
Try this one again.
At 7/9/11 10:57 PM, LeonOfBlain wrote: For as long as I can remember I've almost always heard of time being referred to as the fourth dimension. but i suppose to call it a dimension can open the door to all kinds of phenomena being called a dimension.
From what you've been saying, not just in this latest post, you seem to have the notion of dimensions of space time confused with the notion of dimensions in science fiction movies.
It's mathematics. You don't need to jump through a worm hole to get from the x axis to the y axis, the y axis to the z axis, the z axis to the 't' axis, or any other combination thereof.
And time is an axis due to its nature, not due simply to it existing as a phenomena. You're arguing an abstraction fallacy. For example: If I can say that apples have seeds, then I can say that all foods have seeds.
For the most part, you seem to be mashing words together. Hell, some of your sentences aren't even grammatically cogent, let alone semantically.
Is it really unclear to you whether an electrical charge can be understood mathematically? Because that's actually one of the questions you asked, though in terms you clearly thought sounded deeper.
I hope to god you haven't taken 6th grade science, or that you're trolling.
At 6/13/11 01:09 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:What makes you think I'd owe you anything, including definitive proofs, of my existence, let alone true nature, if I'm the guy who built your sadistic asses?
I'm not suggesting that God owes us anything.
I'm not asking for definitive proofs of his existence or true nature.
Resume please...
At 7/1/11 02:09 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I'm going to play the Abiewaksewed game.... check it out.
You're not an expert.
You seem to be confused about the rules of the game. Before you can use the phrase that way, the person you're replying to has to have 1) used it to cop out at whim, as well as 2) exploited it for the pretense that they are being reasonable, humble, or maybe even fair.
At 6/30/11 02:19 PM, CacheHelper wrote:At 6/29/11 07:39 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: It's in there. An expert would be able to find it for you.Blah, don't be a dick.
Oh. So that's the prudent response? Great.
[ time warp ]
Yes... but it's not in any one spot. It's based on numerous passages throughout the book. This is where you would need an expert... someone who knows enough about the Bible to quote you the sources for the explanations.
Blah, don't be a dick.
Now what happens?
The idea that God [...]
This looks a hell of a lot like interpretation, which, you not only clarified as derivative of three classes of motivation, but also clarified your own as being derivative of the class: lacking of knowledge. By this logic, your interpretation is inherently in excess of the Bible. It is by this criteria [ whether something is in excess of the Bible ] that you continually dismiss competing arguments.
And, if you're really going to shake your head at the notion that justice implies fairness, when it does, and when some translations of the Bible itself use the word "fair," and when solace is found in justice through its fairness, you absolutely forfeit the privilege of having anyone here accept your, by comparison, far removed interpretations of what you originally claimed was the truth about popular Christian philosophy.
And if, while replying to this, you can't see anything here but spite, start over, and try not being such a dick.
***
and there are no special star-point exceptions to his rule. [...] The Commands don't read "thou shall not kill* --- *except in war". Sin is sin, and it's seen objectively by God.
Morality is normative.
Moral code is both subjective and objective. To God, it is subjective, albeit it absolute.
*except in war"
Canaanites.
At 6/29/11 07:55 PM, NazChow wrote: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL [...]
Nice job bringing fresh ideas to the table.
At 6/29/11 06:53 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Can you provide such a passage?
It's in there. An expert would be able to find it for you.
At 6/29/11 07:29 AM, cdiller79 wrote: You can't have a painting without a painter.
[...]
If you look at the complexity
Never minding that the former argument you put forth renders the latter both baseless and superfluous, both of these arguments have been thoroughly debunked across the internet.
Just the other day my mom got one, and when I told her it was fake she exclaimed, "how can you tell!?"
Well mom, for one, you have no anti-virus program on your computer to begin with.
I still live with my parents... fuck.
At 6/28/11 11:09 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:'later on' is the keyword(s) here. We're not talking about later on, we're talking about "before". Before they ate from the tree.My point was it didn't have to be the tree. All God has to do is prohibit them from doing SOMETHING, and then if they do it, they can be punished. That's where the germ of my idea comes from.
Wait, Cache has been arguing for quite some time that Adam and Eve knew good from evil prior to eating from the tree, specifically that they knew of it objectively as oppose to subjectively.
He also assured me that this is in the Bible, and that an expert would be able to find the appropriate passages.
The person who argues { that Free Will is characterized by a subjective understanding of choice } and { that unfair circumstances preclude subjective understanding of choice } is the person who subsequently argues that God, with respect to our exploration of choice, is fair.
Also, on the matters of fairness, inherited sin, and salvation, Ezekiel 18:
19 "But you ask, 'Why is the son not punished for the father's sin?' The son has done what is fair and right. He obeys all my rules, so he will surely live.20 The person who sins is the one who will die. A child will not be punished for a parent's sin, and a parent will not be punished for a child's sin. Those who do right will enjoy the results of their own goodness; evil people will suffer the results of their own evil.
21 "But suppose the wicked stop doing all the sins they have done and obey all my rules and do what is fair and right. Then they will surely live; they will not die.22 Their sins will be forgotten. Because they have done what is right, they will live.23 I do not really want the wicked to die, says the Lord God. I want them to stop their bad ways and live.
24 "But suppose good people stop doing good and do wrong and do the same hateful things the wicked do. Will they live? All their good acts will be forgotten, because they became unfaithful. They have sinned, so they will die because of their sins.
25 "But you say, 'What the Lord does isn't fair.' Listen, people of Israel. I am fair. It is what you do that is not fair!26 When good people stop doing good and do wrong, they will die because of it. They will die, because they did wrong.27 When the wicked stop being wicked and do what is fair and right, they will save their lives.28 Because they thought about it and stopped doing all the sins they had done, they will surely live; they will not die.29 But the people of Israel still say, 'What the Lord does isn't fair.' People of Israel, I am fair. It is what you do that is not fair.
30 "So I will judge you, people of Israel; I will judge each of you by what you do, says the Lord God. Change your hearts and stop all your sinning so sin will not bring your ruin.31 Get rid of all the sins you have done, and get for yourselves a new heart and a new way of thinking. Why do you want to die, people of Israel?32 I do not want anyone to die, says the Lord God, so change your hearts and lives so you may live.
***
And Cache, your characterization of interpretation as coming from lack of knowledge, lack of care, or greed, is an argument that interpretation is inherently in excess of the Bible. Meanwhile, when presented a notion in excess of the Bible, you use that particular characteristic of it, to discount it or brush it aside.
This topic reminds me of the Death Star bit in Clerks.
At 6/26/11 03:01 PM, Korriken wrote: [...]
All understandable. Though I guess my issue is more about time and money than preservationism. I don't really see it as all that culturally destructive. Pointless, yeah.
At 6/25/11 01:10 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: And no its not easier because even with all the science it still asks and answers the fundamental "HOW", never the fundamental "Why", and before you say they're the same thing, they're not, you can tell me how the sky is blue, but not why.
"How" still implies causality. Causality without an ultimate cause or consciously defined purpose still constitutes an answer to the question, "why". Science does explain why the sky is blue, but neither ultimately nor with respect to God's intent.
Additionally, the notion that science is incomplete, on account of it not answering questions of God's intent nor questions the inception of existence by the act of God, relies on the presumption that there is a creator-god with intent.
Go ahead and believe in God, but please do not spread dishonest semantic arguments.
Korriken... are you trolling or do you actually have your panties in a bunch?
Man, whether as others or oneself, is either the wellspring or inevitable cipher of rationalized belief, including those of God.
P.s. If you do get a religious massage, ask for a revelation.
If I allege that some phenomenon is supernatural, and is therefore, by virtue of being above nature, immune to scrutiny on natural terms...
... does it follow that...
...if I allege that some action of mine is supermoral, that it is therefore, by virtue of being above morality, immune to scrutiny on moral terms?
At 6/24/11 04:39 PM, Ericho wrote: It's possibly because the people whom most think of when they think of atheists do that all the time. When Americans think of atheists, the people who come most prominently to mind are the woman who wanted "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance or Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Those people were all known for bashing religion, and they are unfortunately the role models most atheists look up to.
You started out so well. Then you had to go dash it all away by making one grand claim out of your own prejudice against atheism. Way to go.
To think... you were so close to completing a reasonable thought: that the most outspoken do not necessarily represent the greater portion of their constituents. Rather it's usually to the 'outside observer' that such social groups get simplified and stigmatized, that Muslims become freedom hating terrorists, that southerners become inbred racist Jesus freaks, that coastal city folk become pretentious elitist cunts, that atheists become Christian hating pricks. When you're outside a social classification. you tend to see it more abstractly and less nuanced.
And I wouldn't have nearly as much a problem with your passively adversarial bullshit if you didn't sell it as if it were so innocent and apologetic. If you didn't pretend, every time you get called out for it, that it's not there.
Paraphrased: "Maybe we think atheists bash the religious because it's the more hateful and outspoken rhetoric we tend to hear about. [180 degrees] And it's the more hateful and outspoken atheists that most atheists themselves look up to as role models."
Seriously. Fuck you. I don't care if you didn't mean what you said to be offensive. It's offensive.
At 6/24/11 12:46 AM, Smittytheghost wrote: We all have the choice to believe what we want.
This does not mean I have to agree or be okay with it. Nor does it mean I have to shut my face about it.
The human conditions by which it hurts to be criticized is rather dear to the human conditions by which one is driven to criticize. And I certainly would not consider either being hurt by criticism nor dishing it out necessarily lacking in virtue.
Also... a bashing is necessarily a critique, but a critique is not necessarily a bashing.
At 6/23/11 08:00 PM, DestinedSoup wrote: [it] is a complete act of faith, there shouldn't be proof.
Right. And in order to kill someone, there should be death.
But somehow, I get the impression you're arguing more than a semantic condition.
I Corinthians 2.
If spiritual wisdom is revealed by, and can only be revealed by, the Spirit, then the Bible is not the sole source of spiritual wisdom.
And considering that 1) Paul was at the time a human witness, 2) without a 'definitive' anthology, 3) speaking as an authority on 'spirit-taught-word', and that 4) one need not have actually physically been at the crucifixion to be a witness to Christ...
... there's not much of a case to say there cannot be authority of like kind today*. And should such a person disseminate beliefs you hold contradictory or in excess of your allegedly definitive anthology, the only thing keeping it that way is your unwillingness to reconcile them - whether out of intellectual stubbornness or alleged spiritual wisdom.
* well, unless such an authority were to claim otherwise.
But anyway, the main thing to take away from this is that it is absurd to discount beliefs of men in excess of the Bible, when the Bible is a condensed work built of the words of (allegedly) divinely inspired men, and when anyone who has the Spirit is by definition divinely inspired.
At 6/21/11 12:29 PM, TheGuyAtYourWindow wrote: so basically the only reason we need guns is cause... we already have guns... thats almost a paradox.
It's a paradox purely out of your ambiguous choice of words. And the relationship you're illustrating here is how any need works, particularly if its technological.
If anything you can say it's all absurd, but then this line of reasoning still doesn't single out guns.
At 6/21/11 01:53 PM, CacheHelper wrote: That still doesn't mean that I'm the one that physically molested the child. The person with a known history of sexual offenses and I, are two different people.
Right.
And I told you, nearly upon my involvement with this tangent, that the argument that God tempts is not equivalent to the more abstract argument that God is to blame.
Though, my answering to one argument with the other, after telling you not to do it, didn't help (last post on the 15th). Sorry about that. It was unintentional too. Mistake!? I make no mistakes! Bah!
If Adam had thoughts of murder, God would probably say "murder is bad", and thus it would be forbidden. Since Adam wasn't going to murder (or commit any other sin) God didn't have to say "don't do that".
Isn't this entire line of argument void by the notion that Adam already knew murder was forbidden?
Except, according to the religion, it's not hearsay, it's the word of God; written through divine inspiration. It is the truth... there is no questioning it.
It's necessary for a lot of my arguments to make sense that you juggle more than one idea at a time. Otherwise we go in circles where you continually affirm one element, forget the rest, and as I reintroduce them, continually drop the previous. If it's intentional, stop it.
So you don't have to go looking for it... "Claims regarding the divine that are in-and-of-themselves tantamount to hearsay are incorrect unless they're backed up by claims regarding the divine that are in-and-of-themselves tantamount to hearsay."
You can answer the former (tentatively), yet you are not God.No, I'm not God. I can't really answer for him either. I never claimed I could.
But you do answer for him, regardless of how apt you consider yourself or accurate you consider the answers.
I apologize for trying to answer your questions.
If there's something for you to apologize for, it's not for trying to answer the questions. It's for shutting down the conversation with excuses like "I'm not God" when it's clearly not actually stopping you from answering (if only tentatively).
There's a far more intellectually honest way to refuse to answer a question, but God forbid I supply you a token phrase for you to spite us with, ad nauseam.
Because, otherwise... they would not have known?Yes
But they knew of every other sin?
Either the passage exists or it doesn't.
As does everything else. But it seems you're trying to implying something.
The Bible is a real book, you can confirm if it exists or not.
Yeah, but you're not just alleging that the book exists.
I don't know that much about the Bible (I'm no expert) so I don't know the passages you're looking for.
But they're there, and an expert would be able to find them, so you say.
Read it yourself and find out if I'm wrong.
"If no such passage exists, then they have no evidence to back up their claims and cannot be considered 'correct'."
The logical construct from which this more specific application is fashioned, is the same logical construct by which we shouldn't consider you 'correct' for merely alleging that experts would find the alleged passages you're presuming exist.
Assuring us the passages exist is no better than having no explicit passages to reference. Assuring us that the passages exist, does not circumvent the logic you laid out. All you've done is abstracted the burden of proof, not reversed it, nor satisfied it.
***
When the word "fear" means "devotion," and a fine line has to be drawn between "tempting" and "testing," I don't think you can argue that the Bible is not interpreted. Honestly though, it's kind of unclear as to whether you're actually arguing that what with all your claiming others to be incorrect.
I'm talking about Abraham by the way.
***
If the Bible was so badly written that it couldn't even answer it's own questions, then no it would not have become one of the greatest works of art in human history and worshiped by millions for thousands of years.
Works of art don't tend to be judged upon their literal veracity. I've never seen anyone dismiss Magritte for being an affront to the principles of gravity.
And people who worship the Bible tend not to worship it solely for its artistry.
And again... you've already tacitly admitted that millions of people are wrong, and presented their motives/reasons for being so as well. So you've already refuted your own argument-ad-populum.
This is not grounds to presume, at a whim, that the Bible, or what you think of it at any given moment, is near water tight.
At 6/17/11 12:47 PM, CacheHelper wrote:At 6/17/11 01:03 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: Addressing criticisms, criticisms that rely on and beg for inference and interpretation by supposing contradiction.I would consider this to fall under 'lack of knowledge'.
"You" are to "interpret" as "expert" is to "______"
So... claims regarding the divine that are in-and-of-themselves tantamount to hearsay are incorrect unless they're backed up by claims regarding the divine that are in-and-of-themselves tantamount to hearsay.The Bible is a real book. Either it says something or it does not. It's not hear-say if you can look at the book yourself and confirm the accusation.
Did you not get that I was calling the Bible itself hearsay? You seem to be arguing an entirely different point.
So... there is no final authority on the divine but the Bible, which exists in the state it does today through human interpretation and reformation. Any further insight of such a nature is either false or, when it serves you, corroborative.Yes, the Bible, according to Christianity, is the word of God. Some claims are false, yes.
Is that all you think I'm saying there?
So... despite limitations of knowledge that not only you admit to having, but also suppose alleged experts and many others of having, and despite supposing these intellectual limitations implicitly by virtue of your claiming them and yourself to be incorrect, you maintain that the religion itself must still be correct, as not so many people would believe something so apparently incorrect.If the Bible was so badly written that it couldn't even answer it's own questions, then no it would not have become one of the greatest works of art in human history and worshiped by millions for thousands of years.
You've already tacitly admitted to a substantial group of people who believe incorrectly, and outlined their motives.
You don't seem to be picking up on the critical parts of these past few blocks of text.
You can answer the former, yet you are not God.I never said it was a correct answer.
So you're willing to supply answers of which you are uncertain. Ok.
You can answer the former (tentatively), yet you are not God.
And arguing that it was the serpent that tempted does not mean that God did not also.The serpent and God and two different entities. The serpent, not God, tempted Adam and Eve.
You're really stuck on that. I'm not. The serpent, honestly, could be out of the picture.
There is implicit temptation in any prohibition.Romans says "through the law comes knowledge of sin." Knowledge, and temptation are not the same thing.
I'm not saying knowledge and temptation are the same thing.
If knowledge was temptation on it's own, the serpent wouldn't be involved in the story.
This is called affirming the consequent. Try not doing it.
Did God need to tell them that eating from the tree was wrong?Yes.
Because, otherwise... they would not have known?
This is in the Bible?Yes... but it's not in any one spot. It's based on numerous passages throughout the book. This is where you would need an expert... someone who knows enough about the Bible to quote you the sources for the explanations.
Oh. So... if no such passages exist, you can't be considered correct... but if you allege such passages exist, then...?
At 6/16/11 01:58 PM, CacheHelper wrote:At 6/15/11 06:18 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Way to villainise the better portion of your contributions to this discussion, and leave out one very important reason.What reason did I leave out?
Addressing criticisms, criticisms that rely on and beg for inference and interpretation by supposing contradiction.
A religion itself is what people believe of it. How many people do you figure you've now said are wrong about their religion because the Tree of Knowledge wasn't any more dazzling than the rest?If they feel differently then they are more then welcome to provide me with a passage from the Bible that states otherwise. If no such passage exists, then they have no evidence to back up their claims and cannot be considered 'correct'.
So... claims regarding the divine that are in-and-of-themselves tantamount to hearsay are incorrect unless they're backed up by claims regarding the divine that are in-and-of-themselves tantamount to hearsay.
So... authority on the divine is incorrect unless it, 1) derives from the source you claim (at the moment) to be the authority on the divine, and 2) derives in the manner you claim (at the moment) that it must, 3) according to the presupposed authority.
So... there is no final authority on the divine but the Bible, which exists in the state it does today through human interpretation and reformation. Any further insight of such a nature is either false or, when it serves you, corroborative.
So... despite limitations of knowledge that not only you admit to having, but also suppose alleged experts and many others of having, and despite supposing these intellectual limitations implicitly by virtue of your claiming them and yourself to be incorrect, you maintain that the religion itself must still be correct, as not so many people would believe something so apparently incorrect.
Don't you mean...No, I don't. There are two different questions being asked here:
Q1) Why did God give man free will
- - A) Because he wanted his creations to love him by choice, not force
Q2) Why does God want his creations to love him by choice?
- - A) I don't know, I'm not God
You can answer the former, yet you are not God.
Also,
Relevant:
"Even if I didn't specifically know how the choices are equal, they are still indeed equal... and the flaw in the story lies in my lack of knowledge and not with the religion itself."
Looks at best related to me. Are you refuting something with this?
The serpent was serving the will of God, an omniscient God, to 'even out' the dilemma of free will. The serpent is essentially a tool, both predictable and exploitable.Even arguing that God knew that the serpent would tempt doesn't mean God is the one that tempted anyone.
And arguing that it was the serpent that tempted does not mean that God did not also.
You have already argued that commandments in themselves provide knowledge of sin, as per Romans 3:20: by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
There is implicit temptation in any prohibition.
(It's also a tad at odds with your new argument about objective vs subjective knowledge of sin)
God hadn't forbid it. Therefore it would not have been disobedient to do it.If they were going to murder, God would have said something to let them know it was wrong.
Adam and Eve already knew murder was wrong without God's warning. Come on.
Adam and Eve already knew murder was wrong even without Gods warning because, before they ate from the tree, they had the same objective view of sin that God has. God didn't need to tell them what was right and what was wrong, they already knew. Which is why they needed the subjective tree...
Did God need to tell them that eating from the tree was wrong?
Prior to their sin, they knew right and wrong objectively. After their sin, they knew of right and wrong subjectively.
This is in the Bible?
If 1) human ability, knowledge, and subsequently choice, are, at any given point in time, despite a gradual increase in any of the above, finite, and 2) free will is the label for the human condition by which we explore our ability and choice... then it follows that free will is limited. With me so far?I don't know... I have no idea what you're getting at and I refuse to commit on a half thought.
Although it may be part of a sequence, it is by itself a rather complete thought. I've given you both the 'if' and the 'then'. And I'm under the impression that you've already implicitly agreed to this argument, but I'd like a more explicit response.
Here's why I have the impression that I do: "Free will says that they can do anything (within their physical limits"
At 6/15/11 06:38 PM, CacheHelper wrote: To imply that the tree is candy in a factory of vegetables implies that the tree was unique and special... that it was the only fruit tree in the garden; but that's not true.
It being the only fruit tree in the garden is by no means the only way for a tree in the garden to be unique or special. I'm not retreading that argument, since you've already established that in this belief-set, the tree was physically indistinguishable except by location.
If it suits you, I could adjust the analogy to better parallel matters of hearsay and self-evidence within the Bible story.
God didn't tempt. The serpent did.
The serpent was serving the will of God, an omniscient God, to 'even out' the dilemma of free will. The serpent is essentially a tool, both predictable and exploitable.
Surely you'd agree that hiring a person with a known history of sexual offenses as a childcare provider would constitute child endangerment. And that's based on a probabilistic certainty, not even an absolute one as was the presence of the serpent.
Yes and No... I guess... I'm confused. They could murder, and if they did murder it would still be a sin.
God hadn't forbid it. Therefore it would not have been disobedient to do it.
If you can't disobey God, you don't have free will.
What commandments did Adam and Eve live under, to which they could act disobedient?
Their objective view of right and wrong let them know that murder was wrong so they just weren't ever going to choose murder (probably) so yes, their free will was restricted in a sense...
This tangent, again, is concerned with their free will after they were banished, not prior.
***
If 1) human ability, knowledge, and subsequently choice, are, at any given point in time, despite a gradual increase in any of the above, finite, and 2) free will is the label for the human condition by which we explore our ability and choice... then it follows that free will is limited. With me so far?
At 6/15/11 03:30 PM, CacheHelper wrote: This too, is in the Bible. Interpretations come from many sources:
- - Lack of knowledge (People don't know what (anything/everything) God said)
- - Lack of caring (Refusal to give up old traditions)
- - Personal Greed (They make shit up to gain wealth, power, fame, etc...)
Way to villainise the better portion of your contributions to this discussion, and leave out one very important reason.
If you were taught otherwise, you were taught wrong. It happens.
Relevant:
"Even if I didn't specifically know how the choices are equal, they are still indeed equal... and the flaw in the story lies in my lack of knowledge and not with the religion itself."
A religion itself is what people believe of it. How many people do you figure you've now said are wrong about their religion because the Tree of Knowledge wasn't any more dazzling than the rest?
The text itself in most and current cases doesn't tread deeply enough into it's own subject matter to be discussed like this without contributing third party insights such as yours and mine.
He wanted people to love him by choice, not force.
Don't you mean....
I don't know... I'm not God.
Don't you mean, "Don't you want your children to love you?"
Don't you mean, "He wanted people to love him by choice, not force."
Don't you want your children to love you?
Don't you mean, "I don't know... I'm not God."
Don't you mean, "I'm no expert but everyone who disagrees with me is wrong."
At 6/15/11 03:46 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Except you forgot to mention that the child is in a candy factory surrounded by thousands and thousands of other people who are also holding their hands out, each with a similar pieces of candy in them... which they are allowed to touch and eat.
For this analogy, it would be more appropriate to describe the other morsels as vegetables, not being singled out, nor being presented in such a way that it fosters a level of cacophony by which the piece of candy sinks from the limelight. So I'm standing by the analogy as is for the aforementioned reasons.
lol wut? I don't think you understand how that game works... because clearly the six degrees of separation lies amongst the person who says it's all Gods fault. After all, God didn't eat from the tree, man did. To blame God [...]
God tempts =/= it's all God's fault. Although the former may, in conjunction with other arguments, lead to the latter, they are not the same argument. The argument you're refuting as if it's the latter, is actually the former, so you may want to try this one again.
***
If 1) human ability, knowledge, and subsequently choice, are, at any given point in time, despite a gradual increase any of the above, finite, and 2) free will is the label for the human condition by which we explore our ability and choice... then it follows that free will is limited. With me so far?
***
Why couldn't they murder?
By, "murder was not an option," I mean to say that pursuing murder would not have been pursuant of sin. It is not to say that Adam could not have killed Eve. It is to say that, supposing an array of options by which to disobey God, murder was not one. Furthermore, their will was restricted, in that they could not disobey God by murdering.
At 6/15/11 12:20 PM, CacheHelper wrote: God didn't tempt anyone, the serpent did.
What God did in the Garden is akin to: holding your hand out, with a piece of candy in it, to a child and telling it, "don't take this" - leaving your hand in their faces - and bringing your charismatic buddy over to tell the child to do the opposite while you look away.
If you want to play six degrees of separation here, then the serpent didn't tempt Adam and Eve either, but, like God, took advantage of the circumstances (though unlike God, did not fashion the circumstances to begin with).
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
