I have argued with many Christians, and I have heard all of there responses and reasons. My Grandpa is a reverend and army chaplain.

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I'll throw it out there. I have heard many replies to this, so please try to be original. I don't blame God for one thing in my life, so this is a generality that brings up good discussion.

Man, as a being, has freewill has he not?

God created man, thus instilling this "free will" in him.

If God says we must belive in him, Jesus...etc. in order to get into heaven, and if we don't, we go to hell.

Then is it no God's fault for someone going to hell, when HE gave them the free will to begin with?

It's not my fault I have so many options, God made me like this, so through a string of logic, it ultimatley all comes back on God. I'll quote a convo with a Christian I had about this very same topic, please be smarter than her.

ME: "Who's fault is it then if I chose the wrong thing and go to hell because I have free will given to me by God??

HER: "It's Satans fault of course, he is the one who tempted man and tricked him into sin, not God's fault."

ME:" Who created Satan?"

(She quickly answers defensivley)

HER: God!

ME: Exactly!

(Realizing what she just said, the string of logic she just completed)

HER:"Ummmmm....yeah"

Any takers on this one?

It doesn't all go back to god, because god doesn't make you do what you do. God gives you the freewill to decide whether or not to accept god. He doesn't make you accept anything. He gives you the options then you take it from there. Nothing more than that.

Yeah, but where did these options come from? Who gave me the ability to chose?

God

So by default, it is his doing that I would go astray, something he gave me, can make me eternaly suffer.

You're argument is pretty much the opposite of what I said, therefore worthless, I drew the logic train for you

God creates man

God says "Hey, you can chose whatever you want, but if you don't chose my way, you will not join me in heave"

I say "Cool" and go about, searching through the worlds religions

I chose Taoism

I die

I go to hell

How did I get here? Oh that's right GOD told me I could chose whatever I wanted right?

Shit, its not like he had anything to do with this right? Of course not.

Damn you GOD! Why did you let me make the decision to reject you!?!?

You can make any decision you want on decisions you have control over. You do not have control over things like death and other twists of fate. You make every decision, not god. To blame god for giving you freedom is idiotic.

And yes god says if you don't choose his way then you don't go to heaven, but if you don't choose his way, then you wouldn't believe in heaven, so not choosing his way would be a moot point. Just because god gives you the options, you don't have to choose his option. You'll have to pay the consequences, but he does not make you do a single thing. This would all be blaming god because you made the wrong decision, which is stupid.

I'd also suggest you don't dismiss arguements simply because they disagree with yours. This is all specualtion.

I dont' see what is idiotic? Does God love whatching people squirm? Why would he give us free will if he knew people wouldnt chose his way? God knows everything right? So he gives us freewill, knowing full well that some people will be damned....ok, that seems a little idiotic to me, not the argument. The logic train rides all the way back to God, God created everything, which means that whatever happened to us, is directly connected to God.

Therefore I burn in hell : God caused it

Why would he create so many complexities if its just as simple as you state?

Who cares if you beleive in heaven or not? According to Christianity, you're going to hell wether or not you have even HEARD it exists.

The logic is simple. Someone might say that God isnt logical, because he's not. I use my brain to decifer what is real and what isnt, and something as screwed up as an all merciful god, who is perfect, causing something this ridiculous to happen.

If God is perfect, where did the itch to create something come from?

Why did he even make anything if his existance was perfect? If it were perfect, then he would not need to create anything at all.

He obviously has some sort of void that our universe and very existance fills.....

Who knows?

It is all connected to god, but it isn't God's fault that you made the wrong decisions. God gave you everything you need to make decisions, and you made the wrong decision. It is in no way God's fault.

And god doesn't cause death and destruction to happen, people's decisions cause death and destruction to happen.

Just because people make the wrong decision, they shouldn't blame god for giving them the freewill to make that decision.

God created everything because he wanted to share his goodness. An integral part of god's goodness is freewill. Just because humans don't use freewill in the same manner that god used it, it does not mean that god is evil, or takes pleasure in watching humans burn in hell.

God does not cause people to burn in hell. He does not make their decisions for them. Just because I give someone a gun, I don't make them fire the gun.If I give someone a billion dollars and they use it to fund terrorism, it was not me who caused them to support terrorism, it was the person I gave the money to.

Krispy, you pose an excellent question.

Let it not be lost on you that many critical thinking Christians have the very same question you do...

A few things I would like to ask you are:

Is it not possible that God created things the way He did, in order to ensure a meaningful relationship with His created ?

If He had made us mindless drones, forced to accept Him and love Him, it wouldn't have been as fulfilling...don't you think ?

If He made us unable to accept Him (the opposite of the above), then He would be eternally separated from us, and that wouldn't be very fulfilling either.

Some things are not explained to their minutest detail in the Bible (which is our only source for understanding God). As Christians, there are times when we must say, "His will be done.", and "I trust the Creator of the universe to do what is best for me."

Why ? Because He doesn't fail us in the aspects of Him that we do understand.

If it is true that He is a God of love (which we believe), then His ultimate satisfaction would be to receive our love, of our own free will.

How can ya'll say that there is a god? What proof? Furtermore, how do ya’ll know that a god gave us freewill? My opinion to all this is that we stupid humans just need a reason for why things happen. The reasons that we comeup with are not necessarily true because I feel the human mind is not programed to know of such reasons. We want to stop the “bad” things in our lifes because we want to go a place called heaven. We belive a action is bad because it is writtin in a holy book that was witten by man and may not even be true. How do people know that heaven even exists? I think that people who believe in religion or a god are brainwashed to some extent.



[This message has been edited by Aczar (edited 01-05-2005).]

Well put Digital_Savior and napoleon_complex. Our relationship with God is based on love, and it would make no sense if God just created all of us to love him with no choice of our own. It would be meaningless. And, the fact that humans are atttempting to blame God for their own decisions is amazing to me, I guess it is just human nature to always blame someone else for their wrongdoings. Take Adam and Eve for example, they couldn't simply tell God that they had broken his convenant with them. Adam simply blamed everything on Eve, who then blamed it on the serpent. Sounds similar to this.

Also, Krispy, I want to touch on a few points you made. One thing you said was:

"Who cares if you beleive in heaven or not According to Christianity, you're going to hell wether or not you have even HEARD it exists." This accusation is simply not true. It never says once in the Bible that God condemns those who have never had a single chance to accept him. They are innocent of anything, much like Adam and Eve were before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I mean, think about it, a young child has zero problem charging around naked in front of hundreds of people, say, at a beach, because they don't think there's anything wrong with it. They are innocent. If you have never known God, and not had the chance to, he is not going to punish you. He is a fair and loving God.

Also, you say:

"Why did he even make anything if his existance was perfect? If it were perfect, then he would not need to create anything at all."

Earth was perfect, when God first created it. Once again, touching on the story of Adam and Eve, the world was perfect before the fall of man. The first time we see free will in the Bible, God is giving it to Adam and Eve. He commands them not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and they disobey him. Man used his free will to enact his fall from God. It was our choice, not God's. He wanted us to remain in perfect harmony with him, never in sin, but we thought our own way was better.

I mean, the blame lies in us for every choice we make, and blaming it on God just is part of human nature, a denial of a responsibility for our own actions. Can't anything be our own fault.

Theyre are two Beliefs arminiaism(sp) and calvinism , arminiaism Believes in limited free-will while calvinism regards the belief is a HERESY for more information look it up in wikipedia.

may GOD Bless you and KEEP you,

disciple

Calvinism is a joke my friend.

How could one take a faith that states we already have our salvation decided seriously in any way shape or form?

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Damn you GOD! Why did you let me make the decision to reject you!?!?

I'll assume that's joke on your part and that you're ignorant of the fact that that is the problem.

If god is omnipotent and all-good, then he could have made it so that we had free will, but we always made the correct choice, and thus always went to heaven.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Is it not possible that God created things the way He did, in order to ensure a meaningful relationship with His created ?

If He had made us mindless drones, forced to accept Him and love Him, it wouldn't have been as fulfilling...don't you think ?

If He made us unable to accept Him (the opposite of the above), then He would be eternally separated from us, and that wouldn't be very fulfilling either.

Your point is moot since you believe he is omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he would have the power to both "force to accept Him and love Him" and give you free will at the same time.

If he did do that, then their is no point to Christianity. If he didn't, then he shares fault for our wrong doings, as the original poster is arguing, and thus not all loving.

We've had this discussion before. Rust, you always argue that preknowledge of an action somehow negates freewill.

Well i knew you would make that argument once again. Does that mean i took away your free will to make the post?

No, because you didn't know anything. You thought you knew. You deduced that because I had argued this same thing before, then there was a good chance that I would argue it again. That is not the same as you actually knowing I was going to argue it.

quote:Originally posted by jc_tbolt:

Earth was perfect, when God first created it. Once again, touching on the story of Adam and Eve, the world was perfect before the fall of man. The first time we see free will in the Bible, God is giving it to Adam and Eve. He commands them not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and they disobey him. Man used his free will to enact his fall from God. It was our choice, not God's. He wanted us to remain in perfect harmony with him, never in sin, but we thought our own way was better.

I mean, the blame lies in us for every choice we make, and blaming it on God just is part of human nature, a denial of a responsibility for our own actions. Can't anything be our own fault.

I do not reject any responsibility in life that rightfully belongs to me.

I would willing accept the fall of man from God's grace if it were in fact my fault

But its not, Adam made that choice, not me

How can God judge my freewill on the basis of another?

God controls everything, if he had wanted us to stay in his good grace and remain in perfect harmony with him, why didn't he? God is supposedly all powerful, but the things he makes, make mistakes, and we pity him for it.

"Well, God trusted us, and we screwed up, now we have to follow his teachings in this world of sin to make up for out past mistake"

It almost seems people don't practice Christianity for a good reason, it's either pity for God, or for selfish reason (I.E. I want to go to heaven damnit!)

?

quote:No, because you didn't know anything. You thought you knew. You deduced that because I had argued this same thing before, then there was a good chance that I would argue it again. That is not the same as you actually knowing I was going to argue it.



Well what's the difference? If God created you, he knows you better than you know yourself. That gives him a much better deduction ability than i have.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



A few things I would like to ask you are:

If He had made us mindless drones, forced to accept Him and love Him, it wouldn't have been as fulfilling...don't you think ?

If He made us unable to accept Him (the opposite of the above), then He would be eternally separated from us, and that wouldn't be very fulfilling either.





What void is God trying to fullfill? What does this "perfect" being need? If God were perfect, then he would need no "fullfillment" at all.

We were created in God's image were we not?

We are flawed, there must have been a flaw in us from the beginning, or we would have never screwed up, some yearning deep down to indulge in out own desires....

Make any sense? This logic proves to me, that God is not perfect, either that or he planted some sinful desire in us, thereby, screwing us.

If man were made in God's perfect image, the thought of disobidience wouuld have never entered our head!

This makes no sense to me, how you can say God wanted a "fullfilling" relationship with us, or that God is "perfect".

Am I making a good argument? or is this just bullshit? let me know how I'm doin.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Well what's the difference? If God created you, he knows you better than you know yourself. That gives him a much better deduction ability than i have.



Huh? That doesn't even make sense; it isn't even relevant.

What the hell does god knowing me better than I know myself have anything to do with the argument?

EDIT: Do you mean he would have known if I was going to argue this or not? If so, what the hell does that prove? How is that a counter-argument? That only serves to prove their is no free will!

Omniscience is about knowledge, not about "good guessing" ... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif). He having "better deduction abilities" does nothing to support your argument...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

I would willing accept the fall of man from God's grace if it were in fact my fault

But its not, Adam made that choice, not me

This is just a thought.

If you had sickle-cell, that would have been passed on by your parent, right?

Same-Same, sin. Sin entered the world through the first Adam.

Krispy, after reading your post many times I have come to this conclusion. It is our own fault that out of all the options we choose the wrong one. We don't blame God for making a wrong choice when he was the one that gave it to us. We don't blame our mother's for dieing when they were the ones who gave us life. See what I'm saying. Your taking a gift and twisting it. Not that letting the mind wander and question is bad, just take it with a grain of salt.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

This is just a thought.

If you had sickle-cell, that would have been passed on by your parent, right?

Same-Same, sin. Sin entered the world through the first Adam.



Oh, so its my fault that I'm human and that a human born before me made a mistake right?

It all makes sense now! </sarcasm>

quote:Originally posted by delete:

We don't blame our mother's for dieing when they were the ones who gave us life. See what I'm saying. Your taking a gift and twisting it. Not that letting the mind wander and question is bad, just take it with a grain of salt.

This reply makes no sense to me, its kinda foggy.

I would never blame my Mother for dieing.Her giving me life has nothing to do with that.

Could you clarify this? I don't see how it relates to my post.

A mother gives you life.

You die.

Your mother is to blame for giving you life which ultimately lead to your death.

You're basically saying the same thing applies to god and freewill.

I am. She did technically "give me life", but I feel as though God just uses mothers as a tool for making more humans, its not like she birthed me her purpose being that I would die.

God allowed sin to come into this world for that very purpose, to kill some of us, was it not?

Otherwise, why would he have bothered, knowing that it would claim the soul of at least one human?

His intent had to be to destroy some souls, otherwise sin was a useless creation, and perfect beings dont create things, let alone useless things.

God gave us a choice, if there were no sin then there would be no choice for us to choose. And God gave us a choice before there was sin. I mean, wasn't life perfect before Adam ate the apple. And the only reason there was an apple was so that there could be that choice. If there were no sin (evil), how then would you define good.

For every choice there is the sin and then what ever God would want us to do. Well for me there is nothing wrong with that. But for some the choice is too much. They can't handle having to make there own decisions, so they look for someone to blame there problems on. For those times they made the wrong decision.

Anyway, enough of that, to finally sum up what I'm trying to say is that God's intent is not to kill us off, but to give us the ability to show that we do indeed love him.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

Oh, so its my fault that I'm human and that a human born before me made a mistake right?

It all makes sense now! </sarcasm>



I've a feeling that very little in life makes sense to you. But you wont realize your ignorance until your atleast in your mid twenties.

I have very little patience tonight. Pardon.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:



God allowed sin to come into this world for that very purpose, to kill some of us, was it not?

Otherwise, why would he have bothered, knowing that it would claim the soul of at least one human?

His intent had to be to destroy some souls, otherwise sin was a useless creation, and perfect beings dont create things, let alone useless things.

God didn't create humans to die. He created humans because he wanted to share his goodness. He wanted others to experience what he experiences. That is why god created us. But god doesn't want to force anyone to experience that, so he gave you the option of sin. Just because someone gives you the option, and you choose the option, they are not at fault for you choosing the option. You still made the choice. The blame still falls on your shoulders.

God did not intend to destroy any souls, he intends for people to save their own souls. Gos started everything, and you, the individual takes it from there.

You evaded the underlying question:

Why would a benevolent god create sin? Especially when he can make us not sin, and have free will at the same time?

Is he not benevolent? Or is he not omnipotent?

so, through your strong of logic, god must to some extent enjoy sending people to hell. he created man and satan knowing that most of the people he creates will spend an eternity in unspeakable suffering. i mean, whats the point of creating people and then just damming most of them to hell for Fing up? i think i ever heard that aborted babies go to hell.. and then we all have "origianl sin". god seems very bitter and spiteful http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

i might aswell add, all religions are wrong. period.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Why would a benevolent god create sin? Especially when he can make us not sin, and have free will at the same time?



Did god even create sin? He created humans and he creted freewill, I don't see how he created sin. Sin is a natural phenomena that happens because people make bad decisions. God gave people the ability to make decisions, whether they be good or bad. He didn't create sin, he created choice, which lead to sin.

Sin isn't some malleable object that has always been around. Sin is an idea created as man evolves. God did not create sin.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

God didn't create humans to die. He created humans because he wanted to share his goodness. He wanted others to experience what he experiences. That is why god created us. But god doesn't want to force anyone to experience that, so he gave you the option of sin. Just because someone gives you the option, and you choose the option, they are not at fault for you choosing the option. You still made the choice. The blame still falls on your shoulders.

God did not intend to destroy any souls, he intends for people to save their own souls. Gos started everything, and you, the individual takes it from there.





If God's only purpose was to share his experiances with us, then he would do so, why would he make us jump through hoops and play the lottery of life to do so?

Napoleon.

Did God not create everyting?

Was God not the only thing in existene before his creations?

How can you say God is the sole creator if he did not create sin?

Because is sin just spawned itself, that would lead me to think that some things are out of God's control, which means that he is NOT all powerful. With my train of though, that is what you just said.

Rust is also right, all of you defending this topic are avoiding the underlying question. If all God truly wanted to do was share his experiances with man, he would do so in a second, since he can do anything he wants to, he's all powerful right?

But no, God must have some underlying motive, something that he needs to see/experiance. Some power trip maybe? Maybe he is the ruthless God that is depicted in the old testement? The God who would smite people just for TOUCHING his ark?

Answer me this question clearly and logically.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I've a feeling that very little in life makes sense to you. But you wont realize your ignorance until your atleast in your mid twenties.

I have very little patience tonight. Pardon.

You may be right in your second part, since I am not in my mid-twenties yet, I very well may be in ignorance. But I consider myself more theologicaly in tune then even my parents, who have willingly excepted their faith just because thats what their parents taught them.

Almost everything in my life does make sense, about as much sense things make to any other person.

Do not dismiss my thoughts and beleifs based off the fact that most of my peers are in a state of ignorance at this age. I am not "dabbling" in anything.

I am not one of the blind sheep who follow the shepard. I am the black one that must be kept on a leash at night.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

Napoleon.

Did God not create everyting?

Was God not the only thing in existene before his creations?

How can you say God is the sole creator if he did not create sin?

Because is sin just spawned itself, that would lead me to think that some things are out of God's control, which means that he is NOT all powerful. With my train of though, that is what you just said.

Rust is also right, all of you defending this topic are avoiding the underlying question. If all God truly wanted to do was share his experiances with man, he would do so in a second, since he can do anything he wants to, he's all powerful right?

But no, God must have some underlying motive, something that he needs to see/experiance. Some power trip maybe? Maybe he is the ruthless God that is depicted in the old testement? The God who would smite people just for TOUCHING his ark?

Answer me this question clearly and logically.

Because god did not play a part in personally seeing that everyt idea was fashioned after his own. God did not sit down and contemplate creating sin. Sin sprang from man. Just because god created man, it does not mean he created sin.

Why does everything need a motive? People often donate large sums of money for no other motive other than that it makes them feel good. Is it that hard to believe that god created the universe, just because he wanted to share? Please don't use the Old Testament in a literal sense, or even at all when discussing this.

God created man, and man created sin. That is the answer. And I already answered Rust's question.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Did god even create sin?

He created humans and he creted freewill, I don't see how he created sin. Sin is a natural phenomena that happens because people make bad decisions. God gave people the ability to make decisions, whether they be good or bad. He didn't create sin, he created choice, which lead to sin.



Yes he did. By creating humans which he knew were going to sin, then he created sin. Hell, by creating rules in the first place, he created sin!

quote:

Sin isn't some malleable object that has always been around. Sin is an idea created as man evolves. God did not create sin.

No. Sin is an offense committed by breaking a rule, (a commandment if you will) a rule which Christians believe god gave on to them. Hence he DID create sin, not only by creating those rules, but by creating humans which he knew were going to sin.

quote:Just because god created man, it does not mean he created sin.

That's just semantics. The crucial point is that he is responsible for it because he knew humans were going to sin. So whether you accept that he indirectly created it or not, he is responsible for it, and that's the important thing in this argument.

He knowing people were going to sin, and then making them anyways, when he had the ability to either not make them, or make them so they have freewill but don't sin, makes him completely responsible for sin, and thus not benevolent.

P.S. You completely evaded the question.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-07-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yes he did. By creating humans which he knew were going to sin, then he created sin. Hell, by creating rules in the first place, he created sin!

God didn't intend for humans to sin, he knew they could, but he expects people to not sin. And again, he did not create sin. He created humans, which in turn created sin.

quote:No. Sin is an offense committed by breaking a rule, (a commandment if you will) a rule which Christians believe god gave on to them. Hence he DID create sin, not only by creating those rules, but by creating humans which he knew were going to sin.

No, humans created sin by breaking the rules. God didn't create sin as punishment for breaking the rules. Sin is an idea created by man, not something created by god. God did not crete sin, because he was not the first to sin. Since sin is an idea, the first person to think of that idea could be called the creator of that idea. Since humans were the first to sin, they were the ones who created sin.

quote:That's just semantics. The crucial point is that he is responsible for it because he knew humans were going to sin. So whether you accept that he indirectly created it or not, he is responsible for it, and that's the important thing in this argument.

He knowing people were going to sin, and then making them anyways, when he had the ability to either not make them, or make them so they have freewill but don't sin, makes him completely responsible for sin, and thus not benevolent.

He did not know humans are going to sin. He gave humans freewill, and humans took it from there. He is not responsible for sin, because he did not create it at all. Responsibility lies with the originator of sin. Since god did is not the origin of sin, he is not responsible for sin. Humans don't have to sin. A person can go their entire life without sinning. God does not, and has not ever sinned. For sin to originate, someone had to do it forst. That someone was humans, not God. God did not create sin.

quote:P.S. You completely evaded the question.

Your question is wrong, because you falsely assume that god created sin.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I'll assume that's joke on your part and that you're ignorant of the fact that that is the problem.

If god is omnipotent and all-good, then he could have made it so that we had free will, but we always made the correct choice, and thus always went to heaven.

And not be the recipient of the ultimate fulfilling relationship: the choice to love.

Robots aren't very...interesting.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Your point is moot since you believe he is omnipotent. If he is omnipotent, then he would have the power to both "force to accept Him and love Him" and give you free will at the same time.

If he did do that, then their is no point to Christianity. If he didn't, then he shares fault for our wrong doings, as the original poster is arguing, and thus not all loving.

Your points are moot, since you are angry that God created you the way He did...it's time to put down the gauntlet, Rust.

I noticed you hadn't been here in a while (how interesting that I hadn't been as well) and now you come out of the woodwork.

You're right..God has the power to do all things.

Why don't you ask Him, Rust ?

I can only give the answers limited to my human perception of Him and the Bible, and I am by no means a scholar.

My explanation of things is no doubt less than eloquent, but how I came to the answers I did is far more important.

You don't care about that, so I won't bore you.

I don't believe it has been said by me that He doesn't hold the responsibility for His creation. We are what He created us to be.

That doesn't mean that He ought to be blamed for anything, and that we don't actually possess free will in the presence of an omnipotent God.

Believe me, I understand your logic. It is a very acceptable viewpoint.

That doesn't mean, however, that you are even trying to understand Him, or that you are right.

I don't really feel as though God's design lacks love.

You are basing your statements on your perception of human love, and human free will. I am positive God sees (and intended it to be) very different.

Again, I say to you, READ THE BIBLE.

So much of what you think stems from a lack of understanding.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No, because you didn't know anything. You thought you knew. You deduced that because I had argued this same thing before, then there was a good chance that I would argue it again. That is not the same as you actually knowing I was going to argue it.

In your case, it can be, since you always do.

Did you see the excerpt I posted recently from a sermon by Charles Spurgeon ?

I think the last few lines may hit home for you.

By the way, you come off as really arrogant...did you realize that ?

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

I do not reject any responsibility in life that rightfully belongs to me.

I would willing accept the fall of man from God's grace if it were in fact my fault

But its not, Adam made that choice, not me

How can God judge my freewill on the basis of another?

God controls everything, if he had wanted us to stay in his good grace and remain in perfect harmony with him, why didn't he? God is supposedly all powerful, but the things he makes, make mistakes, and we pity him for it.

"Well, God trusted us, and we screwed up, now we have to follow his teachings in this world of sin to make up for out past mistake"

It almost seems people don't practice Christianity for a good reason, it's either pity for God, or for selfish reason (I.E. I want to go to heaven damnit!)

?

Do you not recognize that you are not any different in will, genetics, and logic than Adam was ?

Do you suppose, that had it been you in the Garden of Eden that day, you would have done any differently ?

Adam had his only human companion, a woman (who no doubt was GORGEOUS to him, since he had no other options !), enticing him to take a bite of the forbidden fruit.

Just try imagining yourself in that position. Men have fallen for far less things in significance than the Original Sin for a woman.

She had also takenm a bite first, and seemingly, nothing had happened to her.

God does not judge your free will based on another's. Free will is free will, and man is man. You are judged on your choice, for which He gives all an equal opportunity.

I don't know anyone that PITY'S God...

I think your questions would be best answered if you were to ask Him. He is not unreachable, you know.

Also, start reading some scripture.

I recommend calling Calvary Chapel of Phoenix (you can find them online with a Google search), and requesting that weekly sermons be sent to you, as an aid on your way through the word.

So many questions have answers in the pages of the only living word of God.

God bless you and keep you !

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:



What void is God trying to fullfill? What does this "perfect" being need? If God were perfect, then he would need no "fullfillment" at all.

We were created in God's image were we not?

We are flawed, there must have been a flaw in us from the beginning, or we would have never screwed up, some yearning deep down to indulge in out own desires....

Make any sense? This logic proves to me, that God is not perfect, either that or he planted some sinful desire in us, thereby, screwing us.

If man were made in God's perfect image, the thought of disobidience wouuld have never entered our head!

This makes no sense to me, how you can say God wanted a "fullfilling" relationship with us, or that God is "perfect".

Am I making a good argument? or is this just bullshit? let me know how I'm doin.

Perhaps it is no void at all.

He "needs" nothing. Is it farfetched to say that He "wants" it ?

We were created in God's image, according to the Bible, but there is no specification as to whether or not that refers to our spiritual bodies, or our physical. I happen to think it is not the latter.

I also have to remind you that we were CREATED in His image...if that pertains to the physical, then I can imagine that we may not be in His image anymore.

Free will can be considered flaw, from a human standpoint. That is not to say that God does not know what He is doing.

God is perfect, whether we understand His motives for the nature of His creation or not.

Your arguments are fantastic, and are in line with what all critical thinkers reason, Christians and non-Christians alike.

I love that you are really "thinking"...it's a nice change from the typical angry rhetoric of unbelievers.

One thing to consider is that the measure of "perfection" is set by the standard of God, since He is the Creator. He is the platform from which all other existence stems.

Logically, whatever He does is perfect.

Keep it coming. :-)

Another point concerning sin is that it is not necessarily a created thing in and of itself. Sin is thinking, speaking, or acting contrary to God's perfect will and direction. So, sin in essence is literally opposition to God, in thoughts, words, or actions. Therefore, God did not and could not "create" sin, since He could not oppose Himself, for it would contradict His fundamental nature. Satan and humankind can sin, since we can oppose God's will.

quote:Originally posted by cerebraldisorder:

Another point concerning sin is that it is not necessarily a created thing in and of itself. Sin is thinking, speaking, or acting contrary to God's perfect will and direction. So, sin in essence is literally opposition to God, in thoughts, words, or actions. Therefore, God did not and could not "create" sin, since He could not oppose Himself, for it would contradict His fundamental nature. Satan and humankind can sin, since we can oppose God's will.

Exactly!

Sin is a creation of man, not of god.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

God didn't intend for humans to sin, he knew they could, but he expects people to not sin.

There is no "hope" with an omniscient god. He already knows what you're going to do hence he cannot "hope" you do something different.

quote:

And again, he did not create sin. He created humans, which in turn created sin.

And I already dealt with this. Even if you disregard my argument, which you haven't refuted; the underlying point is that he is responsible for it. That's the point. That god is responsible for sin.

quote:No, humans created sin by breaking the rules. God didn't create sin as punishment for breaking the rules.

But by creating the rules he created the possibility of sin existing, thus he is responsible for it.

quote:He did not know humans are going to sin.

Then he isn't omniscient! Thank you for supporting my argument.

quote:

He gave humans freewill, and humans took it from there. He is not responsible for sin, because he did not create it at all.

He's responsible for it because to be omniscient like Christians claim he is, he must have known that people were going to sin,. and thus he's responsible for creating humans when he knew they were going to sin, and moreover, when he could have easily stopped it.

quote:

Your question is wrong, because you falsely assume that god created sin.



No. I didn't falsely assume anything because you've yet to refute ANYTHING!

1. It can be argued that by creating humans which he knew were going to sin, he created sin indirectly. You have yet to refute this.

2. It can be argued that by creating those set of commandments, he created the possibility of sin existing.

3. Even then, like I've said and you willfully ignored, the point is whether he is responsible for it or not, which once again you've yet to refute!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And not be the recipient of the ultimate fulfilling relationship: the choice to love.

Robots aren't very...interesting.

Err.. a very silly argument seeing as god could have made it so they could have loved; thus your whole point is moot.

quote:Your points are moot, since you are angry that God created you the way He did...it's time to put down the gauntlet, Rust.

Um... that's why my points are moot? What a brilliant argument! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:I noticed you hadn't been here in a while (how interesting that I hadn't been as well) and now you come out of the woodwork.

You must be blind then. Apparently this is more of your self-martyrdom.

EDIT: Here, for your convinience and/or viewing pleasure:

http://www.totse.com/bin/bbs/search.cgi?action=simplesearch&StartPoint=1&SearchTerms=&SearchUser=Rust&ForumChoice=15&SearchIn=ALL&SearchDate=ALL&ExactName=no&BooleanAND=YES&File=te mp-2453379-044016-75Bz.cgi&Continue=False



quote:That doesn't mean, however, that you are even trying to understand Him, or that you are right.

And what means that? Your arbitrary feelings of what you THINK I may be doing or not?

quote:Again, I say to you, READ THE BIBLE.

And again I say to YOU, you evaded the argument.

Now please, either provide a meaningful counter-argument, or leave the discussion since you've provided nothing other than fluff.

----

quote:In your case, it can be, since you always do.

How cute! But no. There being a high probability, and GUESSING on that probability, does not equal knowledge.

quote:By the way, you come off as really arrogant...did you realize that ?

You come out similarly as well. The difference being I can back up my arrogance with facts, or arguments; something that cannot be said of you, as exemplified in this very thread.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-08-2005).]

i've just arrived upon request.

where shall i start?

Arrogant -

1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.

2. Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak.



* ~ * ~ *



Convicted -

1. A fixed or strong belief.



Assured -

1. To inform positively, as to remove doubt.



Convinced -

1. To bring by the use of argument or evidence to firm belief or a course of action.

As you can see, Rust, there is a clear distinction between us.

.

.

.

.



I have given plenty of proof, references, and examples in the past. I have presented science, theology, and psychology in most cases. If you don't agree with them, that is fair. But do not lie and say that they have never been presented.

Your link brings up an error: "Could not locate search file. Please try again."

Here is a list of all the current topics, and how many times you have posted in them:

Equidistant Sequences – None

Why are you an atheist ? – None

Christianity Defined – None

This has always bothered me – None

Do U Love God ? – None

Is God a Sinless Being ? – None

A Question For Christians – None

O Please Help ! – None

What The Baptist Preacher Told Me – None

Why I Fell Sorry For Jebus – None

The Beast Is The World – None

6/6/6 – None

Disaster Strikes The Christian – None

Hey MGCBTSOOYG regulars, do me a favor. – None

Demons and Spirits ? – None

Why do you believe what you believe ? – None

My God Will Kill Urs – None

Question for the Buddhist of the West – None

Princess Magdalene – None

Believing In God. – None

Fallen Angels – None

What would this be called ?

LOST TOPIC ?! - None

And that's just the first page.

Shall I continue ?

I just thought it was interesting that this has happened more than once...seemingly, as long as I am not posting, you are not to be found. Has nothing to do with martyrdom. Makes it seem as though you are selective in your rantings, as a hunter to the prey.

I remember when I first began posting here, you would argue with Uncus and Tyrant. Just an observation.



By the way...I am just curious: Anyone else here think I am arrogant ?

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 01-08-2005).]

my only arguement would probably be: god created you.. after that your just a number..like in the census thus making you worth shit in gods views:S..probably goes for everyone else... so arguing this shit is senseless unless you really believe in heaven, hell or any other shit like that...but then again, your a taoist so i believe that your religion doesnt believe in christian beliefs.

-buncha bullshit

I don't know if you Think I'm a toaist, but I just used that as an example. Taosim is too difficult for an American teen to handle.

This was a really good thread, thank you guys for your arguments, I got some of the typical Christian answers, but a lot of new ones which is good.

This discussion has broaded my sense on this topc, thus, a success.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



As you can see, Rust, there is a clear distinction between us.

I know they definitions, that's why I still don't see a difference.

quote:

I have given plenty of proof, references, and examples in the past. I have presented science, theology, and psychology in most cases. If you don't agree with them, that is fair. But do not lie and say that they have never been presented.

I'm not lying. The majority of the cases when you've argued with me over religion you have not given any proof or even arguments. In fact there are numerous threads (or were) where you've said you'd reply and haven't!

Again, this thread serves as the example. You evaded the argument, and changed the topic. You could not answer the questions.

quote:

Your link brings up an error: "Could not locate search file. Please try again."



Was that such a barrier? It was a simple search, using my username. You'll see a list of topis on which I HAVE posted.

quote:Here is a list of all the current topics, and how many times you have posted in them:

...

I just thought it was interesting that this has happened more than once...seemingly, as long as I am not posting, you are not to be found. Has nothing to do with martyrdom. Makes it seem as though you are selective in your rantings, as a hunter to the prey.

What does that prove? I never claimed I posted on every single thread. The point was I didn't suddenly start posting when you got here from your absence, as you would ridiculously have people believe. In fact, if you do the search, you'll see I posted before you got here, hence if anything, the reverse is true, but you don't see me childishly claiming that do you?

quote:

By the way...I am just curious: Anyone else here think I am arrogant ?

You've already been told by theBishop you were. Remember? Maybe his thoughts have changed since then, but he did believe so.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-08-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

There is no "hope" with an omniscient god. He already knows what you're going to do hence he cannot "hope" you do something different.

I never said hope. I said god expects all humans to not commit sins. I don't think god hopes we do anything, because he knows what we are going to do. God expects all humans to not commit sins, he knows some will commit sin. I necer said hope. You said hope. An omniscient being can expect something.

quote:And I already dealt with this. Even if you disregard my argument, which you haven't refuted; the underlying point is that he is responsible for it. That's the point. That god is responsible for sin.

Humans are responsible for sin. You said god created sin, which I did refute.

Giving someone the tools to do something does not make you responsible for their actions.

quote:But by creating the rules he created the possibility of sin existing, thus he is responsible for it.

No he isn't responsible, because he didn't create it. Creating the possibility for something, does not make you responsible for that person's actions. To blame god for someone sinning is stupid. God doesn't make anyone do anything they don't want to.

quote:Then he isn't omniscient! Thank you for supporting my argument.

What arguement? This isn't a "does god exist" thread. If anything it would support my arguement that god din't create sin. Everything we are discussing is on the presumption that god exists, so what does omniscience have anything to do with anything?

quote:He's responsible for it because to be omniscient like Christians claim he is, he must have known that people were going to sin,. and thus he's responsible for creating humans when he knew they were going to sin, and moreover, when he could have easily stopped it.

Even if he knows people are going to sin, he still did not make them sin. If I know someone is goin to die, I am not responsible for their death. You are making to big of a connection between creating humans, thus creating sin.

quote:No. I didn't falsely assume anything because you've yet to refute ANYTHING!

Name specifically what you want me to refute?

quote:1. It can be argued that by creating humans which he knew were going to sin, he created sin indirectly. You have yet to refute this.

It is too big of a leap between the two creations. Knowing something will happen does not make you responsible for that thing happening. God knowing that sin would happen does not make him responsible for sin happening, because in the end, he is/was not the one who made the choice to commit a sin.

quote:2. It can be argued that by creating those set of commandments, he created the possibility of sin existing.

Creating the possibility for other people to commit sin, does not make god responsible for them committing sin. They are still the one's who are doing the actions, not god. Me putting a gun on the table, does not make anyone pick it up. Likewise, God creating the possibility for humans to sin, does not make them sin.

quote:3. Even then, like I've said and you willfully ignored, the point is whether he is responsible for it or not, which once again you've yet to refute!

God isn't responsible for sin, because he is not committing sin.

Sin should not be defined as a creatable object or thing. Sin is actually the absence of something. Sin is NOT thinking, saying, or doing what God wants you to think, say, or do in a given situation. Just as cold is not truly a substance in and of itself, but actually just the absence of heat, so sinning is the absence or negative of obeying. God created humankind to obey Him, but gave them the ability to make the choice not to.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I never said hope. I said god expects all humans to not commit sins. I don't think god hopes we do anything, because he knows what we are going to do. God expects all humans to not commit sins, he knows some will commit sin. I necer said hope. You said hope. An omniscient being can expect something.

Fine. You said "intends". Same thing applies. He already knows what will happen, therefore there there cannot be any intent... Unless you're arguing he intended for it to happen exactly the way it did, which means he intended for people to sin!

Same thing applies with expecting. How can he expect something he already knows is going to happen! "Expecting" implies there being a lack of knowledge, something he cannot have.

quote:Humans are responsible for sin. You said god created sin, which I did refute.

Giving someone the tools to do something does not make you responsible for their actions.

You refuted it? Ehh No. You CLAIM you've refuted it but what you've argued is that humans created it not god... which I already dealt with...

quote:No he isn't responsible, because he didn't create it. Creating the possibility for something, does not make you responsible for that person's actions. To blame god for someone sinning is stupid. God doesn't make anyone do anything they don't want to.

It does if you know he was going to do it! If you're driving the car for someone you KNOW is going to rob the bank, you're an accessory to that crime because you KNEW he was going to rob the bank. Unless of course you can prove you had no other choice; for exmaple if he pointed a gun to your head. Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

God knew people were going to sin, and thus creating them when he has the ability not to, makes him responsible for their sins.

quote:What arguement? This isn't a "does god exist" thread. If anything it would support my arguement that god din't create sin. Everything we are discussing is on the presumption that god exists, so what does omniscience have anything to do with anything?

It's an argument with the underlying thesis being that the Christian god does not exist, or that Christianity is wrong. Which is why there were questions in the beginning that set out to argue just that.

You saying he is not omniscient supports that argument.

quote:Even if he knows people are going to sin, he still did not make them sin. If I know someone is goin to die, I am not responsible for their death. You are making to big of a connection between creating humans, thus creating sin.

Pathetic analogy. You can't stop death. He CAN stop you from sining. He deliberately chooses not to.

quote:Name specifically what you want me to refute?

Err... I did just that below what you quoted...

quote:It is too big of a leap between the two creations. Knowing something will happen does not make you responsible for that thing happening. God knowing that sin would happen does not make him responsible for sin happening, because in the end, he is/was not the one who made the choice to commit a sin.

1. It makes him responsible if he could have stopped it.

2. He being omniscient (keep in mind we're talking about the Christian god) means there's no free will in the first place. For you to make your ridiculous claim you'd have to refute that first also.

quote:Creating the possibility for other people to commit sin, does not make god responsible for them committing sin. They are still the one's who are doing the actions, not god. Me putting a gun on the table, does not make anyone pick it up. Likewise, God creating the possibility for humans to sin, does not make them sin.

Once again, it does if you have the ability to stop them from doing so.

Also, since you bring it up, he being omniscient DOES mean he forced you to choose sin.

[ quote:

God isn't responsible for sin, because he is not committing sin.

He is because he could have stopped it and chose not to.

Hell, this doesn't even have to do with responsibility, it has to do with him being benevolent or not! If it was within his power to stop sin, and he deliberately chose not to, then he is not benevolent!



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-08-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Fine. You said "intends". Same thing applies. He already knows what will happen, therefore there there cannot be any intent... Unless you're arguing he intended for it to happen exactly the way it did, which means he intended for people to sin!

Same thing applies with expecting. How can he expect something he already knows is going to happen! "Expecting" implies there being a lack of knowledge, something he cannot have.

I never sain intend either. I said expect. To "intend" something would require action on god's part, but to 'expect' would not require action from god. Why can't you expect something you already know will happen. If you expect something to happen, then there would be a belief there that you already know what will happen. If god knows what will happen, then why is it farfetched for him to expect things to happen. And to expect something has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=expect

I don't see an implied lack of knowledge in there.

quote:

You refuted it? Ehh No. You CLAIM you've refuted it but what you've argued is that humans created it not god... which I already dealt with...

You didn't refute jackshit. You said god is responsible for sin because he created humans and he knew humans were going to sin. That isn't a refutation. Hell I refuted it right there:

"Giving someone the tools to do something does not make you responsible for their actions."

quote:It does if you know he was going to do it! If you're driving the car for someone you KNOW is going to rob the bank, you're an accessory to that crime because you KNEW he was going to rob the bank. Unless of course you can prove you had no other choice; for exmaple if he pointed a gun to your head. Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

God knew people were going to sin, and thus creating them when he has the ability not to, makes him responsible for their sins.

But we still have a choice to sin. Just be god knows what choice you are going to make, it does not make you do that choice. And your analogy is bad because it uses too much direct action. God does not act directly. Giving people the tools to do something does not make you responsible for their actions. Me giving someone a gun, even if I know they are going to kill someone, does not make me responsible for their actions. I didn't pull the trigger. That person still committed the actions, not me. Same thing goes with god and sin.

quote:It's an argument with the underlying thesis being that the Christian god does not exist, or that Christianity is wrong. Which is why there were questions in the beginning that set out to argue just that.

You saying he is not omniscient supports that argument.

Well I guess so, but still, if we are assuming god does exist, then this would not matter in this arguement. Everything we are discussing is on the assumption that god exists and that god created us.

quote:Pathetic analogy. You can't stop death. He CAN stop you from sining. He deliberately chooses not to.

No, he allows people to make their own decisions. Failing to stop someone from doing something does not make you responsible for their actions. World hunger could be stopped if the US were to donate enough money, but the US not donating that money does not cause world hunger to exist. God can stop us from sinning, but him not stopping us does not make us sin.

quote:1. It makes him responsible if he could have stopped it.

2. He being omniscient (keep in mind we're talking about the Christian god) means there's no free will in the first place. For you to make your ridiculous claim you'd have to refute that first also.

1. No it doesn't because he still not the driving force behind the person sinning.

How does someone knowing what you are going to do refute free will. God is not the one committing the sin, the human still is sinning. Just because god knew, when, where, how, and why you were going to sin, he still did not cause you to sin.

quote:Once again, it does if you have the ability to stop them from doing so.

Also, since you bring it up, he being omniscient DOES mean he forced you to choose sin.

God being omniscient does not force anyone to do anything. God would be like an observer from the future. He already knows how everything will pan out. He does not come up with what you are going to do, he just already knows what you are going to do before you do it.

quote:He is because he could have stopped it and chose not to.

Hell, this doesn't even have to do with responsibility, it has to do with him being benevolent or not! If it was within his power to stop sin, and he deliberately chose not to, then he is not benevolent!

That isn't a sin. Failing to stop something is not a sin. Me failing to stop a murder is not a sin. Me murdering would be a sin. You can't be responsible for something you did not do. God did not sin, therefore he is not responsible for sin. Why is not stopping something from happening a sin?

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I never sain intend either. I said expect. To "intend" something would require action on god's part, but to 'expect' would not require action from god. Why can't you expect something you already know will happen. If you expect something to happen, then there would be a belief there that you already know what will happen. If god knows what will happen, then why is it farfetched for him to expect things to happen. And to expect something has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=expect

I don't see an implied lack of knowledge in there.

You don't see it? You must be blind:

To look forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of:

There is nothing "probable" when you KNOW it is going to happen. When you know it is going to happen, "probability" becomes meaningless, it ceases to exist.

To consider reasonable or due:

Same thing.

quote:You didn't refute jackshit. You said god is responsible for sin because he created humans and he knew humans were going to sin. That isn't a refutation. Hell I refuted it right there:

"Giving someone the tools to do something does not make you responsible for their actions."

Where the fuck did I say I refuted something in what you quoted? Geez.

Moreover, I already dealt with that as well!

quote:But we still have a choice to sin. Just be god knows what choice you are going to make, it does not make you do that choice. And your analogy is bad because it uses too much direct action. God does not act directly. Giving people the tools to do something does not make you responsible for their actions. Me giving someone a gun, even if I know they are going to kill someone, does not make me responsible for their actions. I didn't pull the trigger. That person still committed the actions, not me. Same thing goes with god and sin.

No. To imply you have choice is to imply you've refuted the other argument, which says that we cannot have free will if god is omniscient, you haven't done so.

You also evaded the point. The point is, he is not benevolent if he could stop it, and deliberately chose not to.



quote:Well I guess so, but still, if we are assuming god does exist, then this would not matter in this arguement. Everything we are discussing is on the assumption that god exists and that god created us.

We're only assuming god exists because we need to do so in order to argue! It's a hypothetical. By you saying he is not omnisicence, you are arguing against the hypothetical Christians are arguing in favor of, and thus in favor of MY argument.

quote:No, he allows people to make their own decisions. Failing to stop someone from doing something does not make you responsible for their actions.

It does if you can stop it. Virtually every single justice system in the world agrees, so please stop grasping at straws.

quote: World hunger could be stopped if the US were to donate enough money, but the US not donating that money does not cause world hunger to exist. God can stop us from sinning, but him not stopping us does not make us sin.

It does make them responsible. That the world turns a blind eye, that's another thing.

Moreover, the point is whether he is benelovent or not.

quote:1. No it doesn't because he still not the driving force behind the person sinning.

Irrelevant. He is an accessory to the sin, and thus bares responsibility. Even then, I already dealt with that as well! The crucial point is whether he is benevolent or not.

quote:

How does someone knowing what you are going to do refute free will. God is not the one committing the sin, the human still is sinning. Just because god knew, when, where, how, and why you were going to sin, he still did not cause you to sin.

If he knows I'm going to choose A, then I cannot choose B, because if I could choose B that would refute his omniscience. Hence, there either is no free will, or he is not omniscience.

quote:God being omniscient does not force anyone to do anything. God would be like an observer from the future. He already knows how everything will pan out. He does not come up with what you are going to do, he just already knows what you are going to do before you do it.

It refutes the idea of free will, because I have no choice in what I'm going to do. He already knew I was going to choose A an infinite amount of time before I was even given the choice! How the hell is that free-will? How is that me being able to choose? That's pre-destination, not free will.



quote:

That isn't a sin. Failing to stop something is not a sin. Me failing to stop a murder is not a sin. Me murdering would be a sin. You can't be responsible for something you did not do. God did not sin, therefore he is not responsible for sin. Why is not stopping something from happening a sin?



Strawman. I never said it was a sin, I said he held responsibility.

Moreover, you once again evaded the argument. The crucial point being if he is benevolent or not, means that if he had the ability to stop sin, and does not do so, then he is not benelovent.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-08-2005).]

RUST -

quote:I know they definitions, that's why I still don't see a difference.

Didn't say you didn't know them.

The point, which you chose to ignore, was that I am far from arrogant, since my intentions are not driven by my human nature, but by God's spirit (why else would I perservere ? Christianity is not ever the popular niche). You, however, live for yourself, as is clearly reflected in your posts.

You apparently disagree with everyone, and everything, and carry a great deal of anger around with you.

It takes one to know one, Rust. I am not better than anyone else, and I can certainly relate to every question, doubt, and accusation from a pagan's perspective.

quote:I'm not lying. The majority of the cases when you've argued with me over religion you have not given any proof or even arguments. In fact there are numerous threads (or were) where you've said you'd reply and haven't!

Again, this thread serves as the example. You evaded the argument, and changed the topic. You could not answer the questions.

You were lying. You stated that "The difference being I can back up my arrogance with facts, or arguments; something that cannot be said of you, as exemplified in this very thread.”

That is a false statement, and blatantly so. Therefore, it is a lie.

I provide an argument in almost every post I make, and of those posts the majority have references, which present facts and arguments of their own. The proof is there, from a Christian perspective, and often not from a Christian perspective, but supporting Christian theology.

quote:Was that such a barrier? It was a simple search, using my username. You'll see a list of topis on which I HAVE posted.

Wasn’t a barrier at all, since you did not specify exactly what the link was supposed to be showing me.

If the audience does not understand the speaker, then it is the speaker’s fault.

I figured what you were getting at, but as you can see, you haven’t been posting in ANY threads, until very recently, which is when I returned.

I think my point has been adequately made, no matter how vehemently you try to argue that it hasn’t.

quote:What does that prove? I never claimed I posted on every single thread. The point was I didn't suddenly start posting when you got here from your absence, as you would ridiculously have people believe. In fact, if you do the search, you'll see I posted before you got here, hence if anything, the reverse is true, but you don't see me childishly claiming that do you?

I never said you needed to post in every thread. I pointed out, quite clearly (several times now), that you disappear whenever I am away, and re-appear in full force when I return. If this had been the first time it happened, I would have said nothing. There’s been a pattern…and it’s sad.

This is not to say that you NEVER posted while I was away…merely that you take certain interest in making your presence known in threads that I participate in, particularly.

It may just be an innocent coincidence, but the way you go about your posts tells me otherwise.

quote:You've already been told by theBishop you were. Remember? Maybe his thoughts have changed since then, but he did believe so.

Honestly, I don’t remember that.

However, if that WAS said, I am sure it was in the beginning, and more in relation to the abortion thread. That is the only topic Bishop and I seem to disagree on.

Besides, I think you ought to let them all answer for themselves. We already know what YOU think.

If it is true that I appear arrogant (which isn’t in the slightest my character), then revisions will have to be made.

So, I’d rather hear it from people who don’t hate me, and think I am a moron, simply because I believe in God, and the preservation of life.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

I don't know if you Think I'm a toaist

You are toast. Burn in hell, heathen!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

RUST -

Didn't say you didn't know them.

... and I didn't say you said that.

quote:The point, which you chose to ignore, was that I am far from arrogant, since my intentions are not driven by my human nature, but by God's spirit (why else would I perservere ? Christianity is not ever the popular niche). You, however, live for yourself, as is clearly reflected in your posts.

You being arrogant in my view, depends solely on MY opinion, not yours. So please, care to explain how I supposedly "chose to ignore your point", when in fact you have none?

quote:You apparently disagree with everyone, and everything, and carry a great deal of anger around with you.

I wouldn't say with everyone. There's plenty of people I agree with.

quote:It takes one to know one, Rust. I am not better than anyone else, and I can certainly relate to every question, doubt, and accusation from a pagan's perspective.

This coming from someone who called me arrogant? Brilliant.

quote:You were lying. You stated that "The difference being I can back up my arrogance with facts, or arguments; something that cannot be said of you, as exemplified in this very thread.”

Call it what you will. I prefer to call it an exaggeration used to prove a point. The majority of the times you've argued or directed a post at me, you have not provided an argument.

quote:

I provide an argument in almost every post I make, and of those posts the majority have references, which present facts and arguments of their own. The proof is there, from a Christian perspective, and often not from a Christian perspective, but supporting Christian theology.

Certainly not when you've argued with me... once again, as exemplified in this thread.

quote:Wasn’t a barrier at all, since you did not specify exactly what the link was supposed to be showing me.

Then it WAS a barrier, by that I meant a "problem" by the way. I thought that since you've said, or implied, you were computer savvy in some threads on totse, it would be easy for you to see what the link was for, since it the URL contains this information.

quote:I figured what you were getting at, but as you can see, you haven’t been posting in ANY threads, until very recently, which is when I returned.

Very recently meaning BEFORE you returned, which completely refutes your argument. How surprising you fail to mention that...

quote:I think my point has been adequately made, no matter how vehemently you try to argue that it hasn’t.

I think it hasn't. I don't see how any reasonably sane person can conclude that I've suddenly "come out of the woodwork" when there's evidence I posted BEFORE you came back. Not just once.

quote:I never said you needed to post in every thread. I pointed out, quite clearly (several times now), that you disappear whenever I am away, and re-appear in full force when I return. If this had been the first time it happened, I would have said nothing. There’s been a pattern…and it’s sad.

It's obvious then that you did not do the search, since if you had, you would have seen that I had posted BEFORE you came back, hence your theory is completely moot.

quote:This is not to say that you NEVER posted while I was away…merely that you take certain interest in making your presence known in threads that I participate in, particularly.

Once again, if you had made the search you've seen that is not true. I've posted more in threads you weren't in.

In any case, I've dealt with this before. You comprise opinions that are the exact opposite of mine. You're a capitalist, I consider myself a socialist. Your a theist, I consider myself an atheist. You're a creationist, I'm an evolutionist. You're a social-conservative, I'm a liberal.

That I may post more replies to your posts, which is certainly not supported by the current facts, only shows I disagree with you more. You bringing this up in various threads on the other hand, only serves to show how childish you are.



quote:

Honestly, I don’t remember that.

However, if that WAS said, I am sure it was in the beginning, and more in relation to the abortion thread. That is the only topic Bishop and I seem to disagree on.



It was said in the thread he made which quickly turned political; you being the main cause I might add.

quote:Besides, I think you ought to let them all answer for themselves. We already know what YOU think.

Where did I block that ability for them?

quote:So, I’d rather hear it from people who don’t hate me, and think I am a moron, simply because I believe in God, and the preservation of life.

More self-martyrdom! How refreshing.

Well, god created LUCIFER, which was satan when he was an angel. Lucifer was an ass and became evil of his own will because he was pissed he didn't get to be the archangel like micheal.

God apparently gave man free will so that he would be seperate from beasts.

At the time, though, there wasn't sin, because there wasn't really evil.

I guess he expects you to do what is right on your own or something.

Though, I accept the fact that any religon could be the right one, and you never really know if you're right or wrong. Just hope you got the jackpot of being the right religon.

quote:Originally posted by Cojax:

Well, god created LUCIFER, which was satan when he was an angel. Lucifer was an ass and became evil of his own will because he was pissed he didn't get to be the archangel like micheal.

God apparently gave man free will so that he would be seperate from beasts.

At the time, though, there wasn't sin, because there wasn't really evil.

I guess he expects you to do what is right on your own or something.

Though, I accept the fact that any religon could be the right one, and you never really know if you're right or wrong. Just hope you got the jackpot of being the right religon.



my question is why would god even consider creating satan

By the way, all, Rust happens to be right in that God is responsible for sin, since He created it.

Where he is wrong, is in thinking that this makes God not loving, not just, or not omnipotent.

Which justifies being angry with Him, detesting Him, and even denying His existence.

To err is human, not God.

Being responsible for creation does not make you the object of blame...at least not in this case, since the topic is free will.

Humans have a desperate need to blame others for their actions. And who better than an invisible, seemingly benevolent ghost in the sky ? http://www.whosoever.org/v5i3/vera.html (this article has something to do with acceptance of homosexuals in the church, but the premise is exact in relation to my point.)

OUTLINE OF SCAPEGOATING PSYCHO-DYNAMICS: "In scapegoating, feelings of guilt, aggression, blame and suffering are transferred away from a person or group so as to fulfill an unconscious drive to resolve or avoid such bad feelings. This is done by the displacement of responsibility and blame to another who serves as a target for blame both for the scapegoater and his supporters. The scapegoating process can be understood as an example of the Drama Triangle concept [Karpman, 1968].

The perpetrator's drive to displace and transfer responsibility away from himself may not be experienced with full consciousness - self-deception is often a feature. The target's knowledge that he is being scapegoated builds slowly and follows events. The scapegoater's target experiences exclusion, ostracism or even expulsion.

In so far as the process is unconscious it is more likely to be denied by the perpetrator. In such cases, any bad feelings - such as the perpetrator's own shame and guilt - are also likely to be denied. Scapegoating frees the perpetrator from some self-dissatisfaction and provides some narcissistic gratification to him. It enables the self-righteous discharge of aggression. Scapegoaters tend to have extra-punitive characteristics [Kraupl-Taylor, 1953].

Scapegoating also can be seen as the perpetrator's defense mechanism against unacceptable emotions such as hostility and guilt. In Kleinian terms, scapegoating is an example of projective identification, with the primitive intent of splitting: separating the good from the bad [Scheidlinger, 1982]. On another view, scapegoaters are insecure people driven to raise their own status by lowering the status of their target [Carter, 1996]." http://www.scapegoat.demon.co.uk/

------------------------------------------

We don't see Him, and we don't hear Him, so He must not be too dangerous. We have no fear for Him...the Alpha and the Omega. God, the father of the Universe.

If we do not fear Him, then we have no need to respect Him. (By the way, by "fear" I don't mean terror...I mean the kind of fear that produces reverence. The kind of fear that can be likened to AWE.)

If we don't respect Him, we can blame Him for all of our iniquities, as well as our fate.

quote:Originally posted by Cojax:

Well, god created LUCIFER, which was satan when he was an angel. Lucifer was an ass and became evil of his own will because he was pissed he didn't get to be the archangel like micheal.

God apparently gave man free will so that he would be seperate from beasts.

At the time, though, there wasn't sin, because there wasn't really evil.

I guess he expects you to do what is right on your own or something.

Though, I accept the fact that any religon could be the right one, and you never really know if you're right or wrong. Just hope you got the jackpot of being the right religon.

Ummm...please post the scripture that says Lucifer was jealous of Michael, and desired to be an archangel. (hint: It doesn't exist)

Lucifer was the angel of light, and his function was to cloak God. He literally wrapped himself around God. I don't think there would be a more prestiguous position in Heaven, if that were even a desire in the first place.

Obviously, evil existed, or Lucifer would not have been able (and allowed) to rebel against God.

You need to read your Bible again, my friend.

As evidenced by our history, it can be said that neither of us will ever yield to the other, so I will drop this argument.

I am sure it is evident to all present what our points are...no sense in making them all over again.

I am capable, but not willing.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Where he is wrong, is in thinking that this makes God not loving, not just, or not omnipotent.

I does, and you have yet to provide any argument to suggest otherwise.

If he has the ability to stop sin, and to leave free-will in place, and he deliberately chooses not to, that makes him malevolent. if he can't do that, then that refutes his supposed omnipotence.

quote:

Being responsible for creation does not make you the object of blame...at least not in this case, since the topic is free will.

We've already covered this. Please pay attention.

If he were omnipotent he would have the power to keep free-will and abolish sin. That he chooses not to means he is not benevolent.

quote:

Humans have a desperate need to blame others for their actions. And who better than an invisible, seemingly benevolent ghost in the sky ?

Pathetic. You cannot refute the argument so you result to implied ad-hominem attacks, and actively evading the argument.

Please. Either provide a counter-argument, or stop posting, since you've accomplished nothing but show even more people how a crucial thesis against Christianity has remained unopposed.

You quoting an argument about "scapegoting", when you're creating a strawman... the irony cannot be explained in words!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Your very good at argueing. i'm just curious, Rust, do you have the ability to argue from the opposite side of the fence reguarding freewill vs. omniscients? I'm not asking you present one, and if you say yes, i would have to take you at your word.

I have provided the best answer that I have, several times. (read the Bible)

For some reason, you put more merit into the words of people you detest (Christians on Totse), than you do in the word of God.

Stop asking US, and...

READ THE BIBLE !!

It's all there. I don't claim to know everything about the Bible, so it is foolish of you to ask me to explain it all, especially God's purpose for things He did not directly explain (or I haven't found the explanation for, yet).

I am still studying, and will be studying until the day I die. One can never know everything about the Bible...but we can sure try.

I don't yet know why God created us with the ability to sin, and then judges us for it.

ASK HIM !

I know you won't read the Bible, nor ask Him...I think that these facts are not nearly as important as WHY you won't.

What are you afraid of ?

Pathetic. You cannot refute the argument so you result to implied ad-hominem attacks, and actively evading the argument.

Why have I evaded the argument ?

Because this thread has, once again, been focusing completely on you and the people you attack, instead of the topic ?

That's the way you like it, Rust.

You'd rather point out the flaws of the individual Christian...I guess it makes you feel better.

If you truly wanted to gain the knowledge you seek, you'd take the necessary measures.

As I already said, ask God. Or read the Bible. Or find a Bible SCHOLAR...not people that have general knowledge of the Bible on an internet forum.

My lack of knowledge does not make God a fabrication.

It means that I need to study harder, so that I have an answer for everything concerning my faith.

By the way, I already answered the original poster, so you can stop saying that I can't refute the argument.

He wasn't arguing, and I wasn't refuting. It wasn't necessary. He has been answered, by me and everyone else.

Xtreem - Rather he is very good at justifying why he feels guilt for not submitting to his Creator.

Attacking the core of his guilt seemingly removes it.

Hating the part of you that seeks spiritual truth manifest's itself into attacks of those who accept spiritual truth.

It's classic.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Xtreem - Rather he is very good at justifying why he feels guilt for not submitting to his Creator.

Attacking the core of his guilt seemingly removes it.

Hating the part of you that seeks spiritual truth manifest's itself into attacks of those who accept spiritual truth.

It's classic.

Oh, dont get me wrong, i agree. And i think that you have answered adequately.

Since Rust has said that he likes mental exercise, i was just curious if he would be able to argue the other side of the arguement... i'm not asking him to do it, just wondering if he could... and if he says yes, he could be telling the truth or lying, but i would be willing to accept his word...hopefully, he would not say yes unless he actually could..because if he lied, he would be lying to himself more than us...Just like someone playing golf, lying about their own score.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I have provided the best answer that I have, several times. (read the Bible)

Well that isn't an answer. If you have a verse, a chapter or a book which you know contains the answer, then by all means give it to me! But saying "read the bible" when there's no answer inside, is as much of an answer as me asking you to read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for the answer to Einsteins field equations... It would be an exercise in stupidity.

quote:

It's all there. I don't claim to know everything about the Bible, so it is foolish of you to ask me to explain it all, especially God's purpose for things He did not directly explain (or I haven't found the explanation for, yet).

You don't have to answer. Do you know what people do when they can't answer? They say they can't answer. A very interesting concept.

quote:

I don't yet know why God created us with the ability to sin, and then judges us for it.

ASK HIM !

And you know I haven't, how exactly?

quote:

I know you won't read the Bible, nor ask Him...I think that these facts are not nearly as important as WHY you won't.

What are you afraid of ?

How in the world do you know I haven't? That's circular logic right there!

You have absolutely no way of knowing if I have or haven't, so you decide to revel in ignorance and make your silly assumptions.\

---

quote:Why have I evaded the argument ?

Because this thread has, once again, been focusing completely on you and the people you attack, instead of the topic ?/b]

1. You've evaded the argument because you haven't provided an answer or a counter-argument.

2. This has everything to do with the topic at hand.

quote:[b]You'd rather point out the flaws of the individual Christian...I guess it makes you feel better.

Where have I pointed out the "flaws of individual Christians"? I'm asking a question, and you don't know the answer, Christianity doesn't know the answer! That's a flaw in Christianity, not an individual.

quote:Xtreem - Rather he is very good at justifying why he feels guilt for not submitting to his Creator.

Attacking the core of his guilt seemingly removes it.

Hating the part of you that seeks spiritual truth manifest's itself into attacks of those who accept spiritual truth.

It's classic.

DS you're very good at justifying why you feels guilt for not submitting to his Creator. You do not accept that Pink Unicorns created our universe, and are the only way of salvation, so you deny them. Classic.

See what I did? Your argument is so pitiful, and without evidence, it can be used against you.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Your very good at argueing. i'm just curious, Rust, do you have the ability to argue from the opposite side of the fence reguarding freewill vs. omniscients? I'm not asking you present one, and if you say yes, i would have to take you at your word.

I could if it meant I didn't have to blatantly ignore logic.

Opinions are by nature subjective, and therefore do not fall in categories of right or wrong. Logical arguments on the other hand, do. I wouldn't be able to argue a logical contradiction without looking like an utter fool.

So to answer your question. Yes, but I'd look like a fool in most cases.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:



If God says we must belive in him, Jesus...etc. in order to get into heaven, and if we don't, we go to hell.



That really depends on what dogma you are basing this upon, more conservative protestants would say yes, but liberal catholics would say no, as an example.

I think that the points you are making are interesting, and the best way I have found of coping with alternate religions/agnosticism/atheism and whatnot is in my father's words.

"If I am created in God's image, he knows exactly how I feel." therefore, if you don't know whether or not God exists or you don't believe he does, God will understand.

Afterall, God is all knowing, all loving, infinite and infallible.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I could if it meant I didn't have to blatantly ignore logic.

Opinions are by nature subjective, and therefore do not fall in categories of right or wrong. Logical arguments on the other hand, do. I wouldn't be able to argue a logical contradiction without looking like an utter fool.

So to answer your question. Yes, but I'd look like a fool in most cases.



Thank you.

Well, he was honest.

Several times (he has changed quite a few of his posts tonight) *lol*

I especially like it when he does that AFTER I reply, so that my post to him ends up making no sense. (he did that tonight)

I am sure it is revision, and no more...it's just irritating when you respond a certain way, based on a post, and then it is changed.

Anyway...



*sleep depravation has settled in*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Well, he was honest.

Several times (he has changed quite a few of his posts tonight) *lol*

I especially like it when he does that AFTER I reply, so that my post to him ends up making no sense. (he did that tonight)

I am sure it is revision, and no more...it's just irritating when you respond a certain way, based on a post, and then it is changed.

Anyway...



*sleep depravation has settled in*

You self-martyrdom is getting tiresome.

I may have changed it while you were writing your reply (and thus not replied yet), or my revision simply took too long, and you replied while I was doing it, yes, but that is hardly my fault.

Moreover, if you'd make it a point to quote, instead of making a long reply devoid of quotes which makes it harder to note what you're replying to, then that wouldn't be a problem.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 01-10-2005).]

Didn't say it was your fault...

And I clearly said that I was sure it was merely revision.

So, now you expect me not to be bothered by that ?

Wow...

I replied to show you how in all probability I didn't change it after you replied, which you claimed I did. Sorry, but I don't like people implying that I may be chaging my posts after they reply.

You see, once again, nobody asked for this sort of input. Since it is uncalled for, irrelevant, aimed at my persona, and not a compliment, I'll logically assume it's meant as an attack; however weak it may seem.

How can anyone think there is a Christian God when it is proven that there have been religions around before Judaism/Christianity was a mere twinkle in some mad guys eye. Oh and don't get me started on evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I replied to show you how in all probability I didn't change it after you replied, which you claimed I did. Sorry, but I don't like people implying that I may be chaging my posts after they reply.

You see, once again, nobody asked for this sort of input. Since it is uncalled for, irrelevant, aimed at my persona, and not a compliment, I'll logically assume it's meant as an attack; however weak it may seem.

I think you suffer from self-martyrdom, then.

I wasn't even talking to you...and I certainly wasn't being insulting.

Trust me, Rust...if I wanted to be insulting, I would be.

Not everyone is as venemous as you are, in their hearts. (that can be taken as an insult, though it is only meant to convey the perceived truth)

That means that I do not intend to scathe you with my words every time I speak to you, or about you. You either have a guilty conscience, or associate your own personal animosity with everyone you come across.

I don't see how it is a probability that you didn't change your post's after I replied to them...since you did. THE PROOF IS THERE.

What you are actually offended by is the possibility that I thought you had done it on purpose...

AGAIN, I clearly stated that I was sure it was simply revision and not intentional, but that it was irritating nonetheless.

So, the conclusion we can reasonably come to is that you think I ought not to be bothered by that. I specifically reply to you, and then your post is changed...somewhat nullifying what I said, or making it incomprehensible to others who may read it.

Calm down.

(P.S. NO ONE asks ANYONE ELSE to say anything on this forum. We all post of our own free will. I don't need your approval or permission to post whatever I choose. To say "You see, once again, nobody asked for this sort of input." is just you being Rust. *sighs*)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 01-10-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by -Mephisto-:

How can anyone think there is a Christian God when it is proven that there have been religions around before Judaism/Christianity was a mere twinkle in some mad guys eye. Oh and don't get me started on evolution.

What do religions have to do with the existence of the Christian God ?

God has been around long before man even conceived of religion.

And Christianity has been around much longer than the Bible. Moses wasn't born very long after creation began, and he wrote 4 or 5 books of the Bible.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



What you are actually offended by is the possibility that I thought you had done it on purpose...

Thank you for completely proving my point.

There would be absolutely no reason to mention that possibility, if you thought it was a simple revision as you said. Hence, it is logical to assume you merely mentioned it as an attack.

quote:

So, the conclusion we can reasonably come to is that you think I ought not to be bothered by that. I specifically reply to you, and then your post is changed...somewhat nullifying what I said, or making it incomprehensible to others who may read it.



No. You can complain all you want. The problem arises when you imply I'm doing it on purpose.

quote:

Calm down.

I am calm.

quote: NO ONE asks ANYONE ELSE to say anything on this forum. We all post of our own free will. I don't need your approval or permission to post whatever I choose. To say "You see, once again, nobody asked for this sort of input." is just you being Rust. *sighs*)



You missed the point. Nobody asking you for your input means it's irrelevant, which happens to be a criteria insults fall in: irrelevance.

I never claimed you couldn't talk, I'm merely stating that it was irrelevant.