DescentBB

flip wrote:If you think the world we live in and everything in it is just chance

We've been down this road before, that argument has been shot full of holes enough times already that you should know better than to keep trying it.

When someone shows me a star producing cottage cheese…that’s when I will start to believe “everything” is just up to chance.

I personally believe life is inevitable, anywhere the conditions are right for it.

If you follow the universe from the very start…Physics…Chemistry…Biology…you will find that it obeys Murphy’s Law to a tee…(anything that can happen…will happen)

Chance….Ppfffhhhtt…life was inevitable.

IMHO

1. Muscular system = the anatomical system of a species that allows it to move.

2. Cardiovascular/Circulatory system = is an organ system that moves nutrients, gases, and wastes to and from cells, helps fight diseases and helps stabilize body temperature and pH to maintain homeostasis. This system may be seen strictly as a blood distribution network, but some consider the circulatory system as composed of the cardiovascular system, which distributes blood, and the lymphatic system, which distributes lymph.

3. Digestive system = is a series of hollow organs joined in a long, twisting tube from the mouth to the anus. Inside this tube is a lining called the mucosa. In the mouth, stomach, and small intestine, the mucosa contains tiny glands that produce juices to help digest food. There are also two solid digestive organs, the liver and the pancreas, which produce juices that reach the intestine through small tubes. In addition, parts of other organ systems (for instance, nerves and blood) play a major role in the digestive system. An organ system that deals with digestion, the breaking down of chemicals in the body into a form that can be absorbed so that the body cells would be able to use them and transform then into energy.

4. Endocrine system = is an integrated system of small organs that involve the release of extracellular signaling molecules known as hormones. The endocrine system is instrumental in regulating metabolism, growth, development and puberty, tissue function, and also plays a part in determining mood.

5. Integumentary system = is an organ system that protects the body from damage, comprising the skin, hair, scales, nails. The integumentary system has a variety of functions; in animals, it may serve to waterproof, cushion and protect the deeper tissues, excrete wastes, regulate temperature and is the location of sensory receptors for pain, pressure and temperature. In humans, the functions of the integumentary system are: protection, sensation, excretion, vitamin D synthesis, and temperature regulation from environmental factors.

6. Urinary system = is the organ system that produces, stores, and eliminates urine. This also known as the Excretory system which is responsible for eliminating wastes from the body (through sweat, urine and feces). It is responsible for the elimination of the nitrogeneous waste products of metabolism as well as other non-useful nitrogeneous materials.

7. Lymphatic system = is a network of conduits that carry a clear fluid called lymph. It is responsible for the removal of interstitial fluid from tissues. It absorbs and transports fatty acids and fats as chyle to the circulatory system. The last function of the lymphatic system is the transport of antigen presenting cells (APCs), such as dendritic cells, to the lymph nodes where an immune response is stimulated.

8. Immune system = is a collection of mechanisms within an organism that protects against disease by identifying and killing pathogens and tumor cells. It detects a wide variety of agents, from viruses to parasitic worms, and needs to distinguish them from the organism's own healthy cells and tissues in order to function properly.

9. Respiratory system = functions to allow gas exchange. Molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide are passively exchanged, by diffusion, between the gaseous external environment and the blood. This exchange process occurs in the alveolar region of the lungs.

10. Nervous system = is a network of specialized cells that communicate information about an animal's surroundings and itself. It processes this information and causes reactions in other parts of the body. It is composed of neurons and other specialized cells called glia, that aid in the function of the neurons. The nervous system is divided broadly into two categories; the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system. Neurons generate and conduct impulses between and within the two systems. The peripheral nervous system is composed of sensory neurons and the neurons that connect them to the nerve cord, spinal cord and brain, which make up the central nervous system. In response to stimuli, sensory neurons generate and propagate signals to the central nervous system which then processes and conducts signals back to the muscles and glands. The neurons of the nervous systems of animals are interconnected in complex arrangements and use electrochemical signals and neurotransmitters to transmit impulses from one neuron to the next. The interaction of the different neurons form neural circuits that regulate an organism's perception of the world and what is going on with its body, thus regulating its behavior.

11. Reproductive system = is a system of organs within an organism which work together for the purpose of reproduction.

12. Skeletal sytem = is a strong rigid framework that supports the body, holding it upright.

I'm convinced Onecannot exist without the other.

Spidey wrote:When someone shows me a star producing cottage cheese…that’s when I will start to believe “everything” is just up to chance.

I personally believe life is inevitable, anywhere the conditions are right for it.

If you follow the universe from the very start…Physics…Chemistry…Biology…you will find that it obeys Murphy’s Law to a tee…(anything that can happen…will happen)

Chance….Ppfffhhhtt…life was inevitable.

IMHO

IMO that is an extraordinarily lazy point of view. And you can't follow the universe from the start...

The leading model for shape of the universe is the infinite flat model, so I don't see why you're so quick to reject his point of view.

Yes, very lazy…due to a complete lack of character no doubt.

flip wrote:I'm convinced Onecannot exist without the other.

yet lifeforms exist that lack things on your list. Irreducible complexity is just another argument from ignorance: "I don't yet know how this works, therefore magic is probably the answer".
The (quite interesting) individual evolution of all of the biological components you listed is plotted out in the halls of evolutionary biology. If you're interested just google the relevant terms ie: "evolution of the skeleton" etc.

Roid, I have no reason not to believe. It's everything I see. Now, if you don't, that's cool to, but I will never be convinced otherwise. I agree with you about the church. It's filled with liars and hypocrites and some of them are mean-spirited as hell, but I've seen some things with my own eyes. I experienced answers to my prayers. Tangible evidence. Also, the word has lost some things through translation, but deep truths are there for the seekers. Here, let me just give you one of my experiences.

I was around 17-18 I guess, and I was living faultlessly, for 2 weeks . I went to sleep praying, I got up praying. Well, in those 2 weeks I got up one morning and for just a second I took my mind off the LORD and remembered I had no food for this little puppy I had just gotten. Well, almost immediately I thought "Cast your cares upon HIM for He careth for you." and went on my way. When I came home that afternoon from work, there was 12 cans and a full bag of dogfood on my porch. No one in the world could have heard me that morning, I lived by myself. Well, suffice it to say I was excited and went around telling everyone. A few years later, I thought back to that day and started wondering. How is it that people are dieing of cancer, heart disease and all kinds of crap, and yet I get dog food. Plus, I didn't even really care, because I knew I could easily get food that evening, yet there it was on the porch. Someone heard my prayer. I asked why and heard this in my heart. "Phillip, if you keep your mind on me and the things of mine, I will keep my mind on you and the things of yours, even that stupid little dog." I know the kind of life God requires now, I have just never been able till now. I have had evidence of many things in my life and it has always came by believing in Jesus, which I will always do

flip wrote:Now, if you don't, that's cool to, but I will never be convinced otherwise.

That's unfortunate you are so closed minded. Even an atheist like me holds open the possibility of God, pending evidence.

vision wrote:Even an atheist like me holds open the possibility of God, pending evidence.

<semantics> That would place you somewhere on the agnostic spectrum, as "atheist" means a perspective which strictly excludes any deity. </semantics>

Foil wrote:

vision wrote:Even an atheist like me holds open the possibility of God, pending evidence.

<semantics> That would place you somewhere on the agnostic spectrum, as "atheist" means a perspective which strictly excludes any deity. </semantics>

Ha! You are correct. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't consider himself an atheist in the strict sense, but he also says making that distinction is pointless when dealing with believers, who often see evil in any form of doubt. I also tend to make a slight personal distinction between "belief" and "practice." I'm technically agnostic (depending on your definition of agnosticism, because there are a few), but I practice atheism. That is to say, I live my life as if there is no gods.

To each his own I guess. I live my life as if there is one God .

flip wrote:I was around 17-18 I guess, and I was living faultlessly, for 2 weeks . I went to sleep praying, I got up praying. Well, in those 2 weeks I got up one morning and for just a second I took my mind off the LORD and remembered I had no food for this little puppy I had just gotten. Well, almost immediately I thought "Cast your cares upon HIM for He careth for you." and went on my way. When I came home that afternoon from work, there was 12 cans and a full bag of dogfood on my porch. No one in the world could have heard me that morning, I lived by myself. Well, suffice it to say I was excited and went around telling everyone.

Which brand of dog food does God prefer?

I cant speak for his choice in Dog Food, but I do know his choice of Drink is Mt dew

Judges 6:40 wrote:So that night God did as Gideon asked. The fleece was dry in the morning, but the ground was covered with dew.

Well, I can't rightly remember the brand, I just remember feeling special I got a whole life full of those experiences but I will not give what is holy to the dogs anymore. You remember that question Jeff

Spidey wrote:Yes, very lazy…due to a complete lack of character no doubt.

LOL

Life being "inevitable" is a philosophical notion... lacking a destination. I would propose an alternative, if you're not ignoring me by now. What would it look like if life were actually anything but inevitable--fragile--but everything touching Earth was specifically designed, and even maintained in favor of all different kinds of life, with levels of overlapping and interrelating complexity which defy comprehension?

No, “Life is wonderful and amazing” would be a philosophical notion, my conclusion is based in logical deduction.

As to your question, I’m sorry but I do not really understand it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Life being "inevitable" is a philosophical notion... What would it look like if life were actually anything but inevitable--fragile--but everything touching Earth was specifically designed, and even maintained in favor of all different kinds of life, with levels of overlapping and interrelating complexity which defy comprehension?

Inevitable life is becoming less and less philosophical and more scientific as the days go by. Even the currently untestable, unprovable multiverse idea is way more interesting and believable than the equally untestable, unprovable (though highly improbable) skygod idea. Earth is not special. You are not special. There are likely billions and billions of inhabited planets in the universe. In just a few short years we have found hundreds of extrasolar planets. In a few thousand years we'll start visiting them. Thousands of years after that we will have likely confirmed intelligent life elsewhere in the universe and the skygod will be just a novel footnote in human history.

[youtube]0kJkhEcQ44k[/youtube]

Foil wrote:

vision wrote:Even an atheist like me holds open the possibility of God, pending evidence.

<semantics> That would place you somewhere on the agnostic spectrum, as "atheist" means a perspective which strictly excludes any deity. </semantics>

**twitch twitch**

Atheism does not strictly exclude any deity. It's simply the CURRENT perspective/belief that they don't exist, the "why" attached to that belief is irrelevant to the label. The "why" could be because they literally do not believe any deity is possible to ever exist (ie: strict), or it could be that they do not believe in the existence of any God they have been yet exposed to (ie: "just your God doesn't exist").

An Atheist may still believe that a deity could possibly exist at a later stage, just not now.
TBH, i think the definition of what a "deity" is is very important to the question, and perhaps the source of much confusion/disagreement.
For example, would you say that a Singularitarian is a Deist or an Atheist? I'd say a technological singularity would fit the definition of a Diety (i treat both intelligence and knowledge to be sacred), yet i would still call myself an Atheist. Perhaps the meaning of the words would change, perhaps the definition of deity. ie: perhaps the singularity would be considered a lesser diety and the word Athiest would come to mean those who do not believe in an upper diety.
I'm sure we'd consider some super-intelligent super-advanced super-powerful Aliens to be Gods, until our technology caught up to their level that is.
(The most mundane yet accurate definition of "Deity" i could scrounge from Wiki is: Something with superhuman abilities which we also regard as sacred. So that could be a lot of things to me, it could simply be a genius. These definitions are terrible, these words are terrible, these concepts are terrible).


Urgh, just another example of how "supernatural" really is a dumb concept. The moment some supernatural thing like a God or magic could be observed as being real, ie: an actual thing that can and does exist as part of our natural world (ie: reality, whether that be multiverses or whatever), then at that instant it becomes NATURAL and no longer SUPERnatural. It'd just be another branch of physics, we could study it, figure out the rules, study how it interacts with other known branches of physics. It would soon become no different to thermodynamics or geology, and just as mundane.
And i seriously doubt we'd just call it "magic", we'd have a lot of more intuitive words to describe it's actual effects, ie: Neuronally mediated attraction and repulsion.

Was Geology at one time "Supernatural" before we understood it? Was the ground moved by some mystical force that was dictated by Gods? Yet nothing has changed, it's still the same forces regardless of if we once called them Magic or Geology or whatever. So by understanding and harnessing Geology are we actually using... magic? Well... YES!
Anything supernatural is merely something natural that we don't (yet) understand. Any God that exists would still be subject to the laws of the physical universe (or at least the laws of whatever physical universe it resided in). Or to repeat a quote i once heard: If any God exists then they most certainly would have evolved. (but this may not apply to other universes with different laws of physics, particularly in regard to entropy, ie: it may have been possible for a God to have been born with a universe itself, as an integral part of it, like a sort of living background cosmic radiation. We don't know what forms of physics are possible in alternate universes, it could happen, maybe the Planck epoch interactions were incredibly complex from the get-go and able to compute/think. But the God would only be as old as the universe itself, it'd need a way of hopping universes to have any hope of being able to claim it's existence has been "eternal", and it's story better be good)

So what’s the word for someone who has absolutely no room for a god at any point whatsoever?

Spidey wrote:So what’s the word for someone who has absolutely no room for a god at any point whatsoever?

Politician.

Oh no, they have room for a god...as someone to pay lip service to while they proceed to do the exact opposite thing.

WooHoo I'm back from the storm!

roid wrote:

snoopy wrote:1. What do you do when you encounter apparent contradictions? (I.E. paradoxes)

assume i'm witnessing a human-made error in the script (incl that the whole script is bogus), or a lack of understanding on my part.

I was going more for something akin to a scientific approach. I think the proper course is to gather as much information as possible. After research, if the apparent contradiction still exists, I think you wind up having to go with whatever option has the strongest case. Sometimes reliability based on prior experiences with sources plays into that strength of the case.

roid wrote:

snoopy wrote:2. Do you think that Abraham thought that he was going to both fully obey God and come back down off the mountain with his son alive, despite the apparent contradiction between the two?

iirc it's not mentioned in the scripture, so it's unknown. I think that Abraham trusted God to know what he was doing, that whatever happened it would have worked out in the end.

Abraham and Isaac leave the servant, and Abraham says something like "wait here, I and the boy will be back." I agree with you that it isn't clear... because Abraham could have been lying to the servant (say, to keep him calm, or so the servant wouldn't stop him)... or he could have genuinely believe that both of them would come back. Hebrews also interprets the passage for us, and states that by faith Abraham received his son from the death... so maybe Abraham thought that he was going to actually go through with killing Isaac, and then God would bring him back to life. (though this presents some problems, as I'll discuss.)

roid wrote:The lesson is that Loyalty-to-God should take presedence over Morality, we should always trust that our wonderful God makes sure it all works out in the end.

If you walked into a Christian church, and the Pastor told you that God commands you to kill your son. Would you? No, you'd just assume something weird was going on, "Nope, this isn't the God i know", and you'd walk out. Because your sense of self-respect is intact enough to question authority if things seem fishy. Not Abraham though, he'll do whatever the voices tell him, ANYTHING.

I think you're right, more than you probably even know.

Add this into the mix:
1. By this point, Abraham has has a decent bit of direct contact with God... so I think it's safe to say that he would know that it really was God, not some other entity. (Note: God doesn't communicate in the same manner with people anymore - this was like voice coming out of heaven unmistakable kind of stuff.)
2. It's generally accepted that Abraham had an idea of what God's moral law was... and that murder & particularly human sacrifice were known to be off limits according to that law. (Note: I used the term God's moral law again. I'm going to stick with it... getting to that.)
3. By this point, God had promised to make Abraham's descendents a great nation through Issac.
4. Abraham already had a history of taking matters into his own hands to solve apparent contradictions himself. (Hagar & Ishmael)

So, to frame God's command to go sacrifice Issac better: Abraham knew God it was God, telling him to go do something that they both knew was wrong and would prevent the completion of one of God's specific promises to Abraham.

This basically presented Abraham with the need to make a decision about what He thought of God: Did he think that God would force him to choose between disobeying and violating God moral law (also preventing the completion of God's personal promise), or did Abraham think that God would provide a way for him to be obedient while still maintaining God's Moral law? To put it another way, there was a tension between some of God's commands (sacrifice Isaac), others of God's commands (God's moral law), and God's promises. Ultimately, it was a tension in God's self-integrity. Abraham had to choose between disobedience and trusting God to maintain His self-integrity. He chose to believe in God's self-integrity, and God maintained it by essentially changing His command at the last minute.

You bring up questioning authority when things seem fishy... and yes there's a time for that. There are also times for trusting authority because you believe in their integrity even though you may not completely understand where they're taking you.

roid wrote:...beware false prophets... ...by their fruits you will know them... (unless they say to murder your son, then just go along with it, it'll probably be ok)

1. Not really applicable.... Abraham had special, clear communication with God.... there wasn't really any question that it was indeed God for Abraham. (As opposed to us or the Israelite several centuries later.)
2. Did Isaac die that day?

roid wrote:If by "God's Moral Law" you mean "Do whatever God tells you to do" (is that what it means?), then no - he upheld the law. Since making your own perfectly reasonable moral desisions (like not murdering your son on command) is apparently breaking the law, it would make it less confusing to take the word "Moral" outof it, so it's left as the more accurate: "God's Law".

Jeff250 wrote:It's the Euthyphro dilemma: is the good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?

Most Christians choose the latter, but this is problematic, because it makes morality completely arbitrary, especially if you imagine God commanding something like murder or genocide, because that would be technically good by definition, despite it being radically at odds with our moral intuition. (The problem with instead choosing the former is that it places the source of goodness outside of God, which most Christians find theologically inelegant, and it philosophically postpones the problem of explaining the source of goodness.)

The whole dilemma is predicated upon the assumption that it's possible for "good" and "God's commands" to be different things. Jeff hits the problem with that assumption... because if you're going to going to define them as different things, then in the long run you pit the standard for "good" against what God commands, and have to make a choice between the two. If you define your standard for "good" to be your "moral intuition," then you're forced to choose between that and God. It's easy to make up straw men like a God who would command unjust evil... but my contention would be that any scenario that you could make up that would put "God's commands" and "Justice, Righteousness, Goodness, Love..." at odds with each other will violate the nature of the God of the Bible. Which gets me to God's moral law - I see God's Nature as the ultimate foundation, which can be then understood in the form of God's moral law, and also which is implanted in us in the form of "moral intuition" - or as the Bible would put it, the likeness of God. The fact that we have this "moral intuition" along with evidence around us in the world is the basis upon which God doesn't accept "oh, but I didn't know" as an excuse for rejecting Him. Theologically, we're all provided with everything that we need to know and accept God, and there is no such thing as a passive response to this knowledge... we either actively reject it, or we actively accept it.

roid wrote:Exactly, it'd be war. So how can you test these things? This sort of thing is a typical cryptography problem, it's easy to manipulate someone by impersonating someone they know. Abraham was just a lowly human, an easy target for any social engineering hack. This was someone telling Abraham to kill his son, we'd like to hope the prior relationship was healthy enough for a request for human sacrifice to be regarded as suspicously OUTOF CHARACTER.
Yet Abe just does it. And it's a lesson in how Loyalty is great?! Stranger Danger Stranger Danger

I don't think the text gives us the latitude to make that jump. It's pretty matter-of-fact about it being God, and Abraham knowing it. You're right that it was suspiciously out-of-character, but it still isn't in question. In fact, you're kinda giving Abraham an out. As I stated earlier...

snoopy wrote:It's easy to make up straw men like a God who would command unjust evil... but my contention would be that any scenario that you could make up that would put "God's commands" and "Justice, Righteousness, Goodness, Love..." at odds with each other will violate the nature of the God of the Bible.

They're thought experiments, not straw men. If the rule is "God == good," then it has to work for any God, or otherwise it's not a rule. If the rule is "God == good, assuming God isn't an ★■◆●", then we're already presupposing some external morality to judge Gods with.

flip wrote:Well, I can't rightly remember the brand, I just remember feeling special I got a whole life full of those experiences but I will not give what is holy to the dogs anymore. You remember that question Jeff

I'm just curious as to God's brand affinity. If you guys bothered to actually keep track of this stuff, it would make Consumer Reports obsolete.

Spidey wrote:So what’s the word for someone who has absolutely no room for a god at any point whatsoever?

The word is Atheist. A-Theist. You put an 'a' in front to reverse the word's meaning. Basic Definition: someone who does not believe in the existence of a God or Gods.

"a-" means "without". You're thinking of "in-" (see amoral vs. immoral) or "anti-".

flip wrote:Well, I can't rightly remember the brand, I just remember feeling special I got a whole life full of those experiences but I will not give what is holy to the dogs anymore. You remember that question Jeff

So how does this work anyways? Does he take the Purina from the Purina factory? And does he steal it, or does he compensate by placing the appropriate amount of money in a cash drawer? And where does he get that money from? Did he steal it, or did he counterfeit it? Perhaps he just materialized the dog food out of thin air and counterfeited the Purina logo?

Ok, that's a legitimate enough question I'll waste my time and answer it, because I thought the same thing. I don't believe He would plagerize or counterfeit and my best guess, someone listened and did what they were told, probably not even sure if they were right or not, but did it in faith. God has chosen to work through man so that seems the most likely to me. At any rate, they had no idea how significant it would be to me I imagine.

I think we both agree then that someone left the dog food. We just disagree on their inspiration.

Fair enough, yet there is no disagreement for me, considering the timing.

I think you already understand the answer to your question. The point of the story was that God would never want anyone to do such a thing. The reason he trusted God is because he knew what he is and what he stands for, not because "someone told him to." You can talk about what Abraham's response should've been or argue about whether this actually happened or not, but the message is pretty clear.

Stop lying to yourself.

snoopy wrote:Abraham had special, clear communication with God.... there wasn't really any question that it was indeed God for Abraham. (As opposed to us or the Israelite several centuries later.)

No, Abraham had communication with a supernatural being and had no real way of knowing who it was at any time. He just assumed it was God, he apparently assumed correctly (yay). But we're supposed to believe there was no question that it was indeed God, simply because it'd be a plot hole otherwise? No, it could have been any supernatural being. You saying "there's no question" doesn't constitute an argument, the question exists, the question remains. (what do you think you're some kindof Jedi waving your hand around like that?)
Abraham was naive, it's lucky no-one got hurt.

snoopy wrote:2. Did Isaac die that day?

No he didn't. I see, so we SHOULD just go along with it then when someone tells us to murder our son, as the Bible clearly shows it will probably be ok!

snoopy wrote:...can be then understood in the form of God's moral law, and also which is implanted in us in the form of "moral intuition" - or as the Bible would put it, the likeness of God. The fact that we have this "moral intuition" along with evidence around us in the world is the...

no magic required http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

snoopy wrote:It's pretty matter-of-fact about it being God, and Abraham knowing it.

I'm not going to take his word for it, Abe was no JF Nash. I'd be willing to concede the point if this were just a fictional story, but it's supposedly historical truth and inspired of God - i have high standards when it comes to all powerful Gods, yet this tale is full of the kindof holes that bronze/iron age storytellers would make. If the Bible were written now by modern professional writers we wouldn't have these kinds of problems... why is that. Our education systems are more powerful than God's devine blessing?

Anyway, it's speculated that in the original story Abraham actually did kill his son Isaac, but this part of the story was later redacted during more civilised times.


Concerning what you say about God's morality un-seperatable from "Justice, Righteousness, Goodness, Love" etc. You seem to believe that whatever God does is moral, right? That the concept of good only exists because God has defined what it is.
I don't understand why you chose to worship God. Strange statement i know. But it can't be because he's Just, Righteous, Good, or Loves you, as those are now self-referential - God's telling you he's those things, the only reason you like it is because he's told you to like it and you are compelled (from fear i think) to obey him. God says think like this, so you think like this. God says like this, so you like this. But as a result it leaves you hollow, you are not allowed to have a moral compass or sense of personal taste of your own.
How would you know you're not the abused daughter of a father who just keeps telling you he loves you, and you know no different, because you have no outside context to compare it to. You've never known any definition of love other than the (possibly abusive) love you've experienced.

Worshipping a God because he says he's good, even when he does things that are bad. Because he says he loves you, when he clearly doesn't (would you torture your children in Hell? nope.). Because he says he's moral, when he clearly isn't (lets commit genocide yay). You can't just demand that everyone redefine the words (ie: Good = What God says is good) to try to make sense of it, the old words were fine. You don't get to torture children and commit genocide then turn around and say it's a good and moral thing to do, no you don't, I don't care who you are.
At the end of the day I'm more moral than your God, and so are you.

Why is God worthy of worship? He's not Good, Moral, Just, or Loving. You tell yourself he is those things, but to do so you literally change the meaning of the words to something else, something self-referential. Is the original concept of Love that we all understand really so unpalatable? This is sick.

How can snoopy--a man--be the abused daughter in a relationship where the father does not exist?

Roid wrote:Why is God worthy of worship? He's not Good, Moral, Just, or Loving.

By whose standards? You're over-extending yourself. Knowing the limits of your understanding is one of the things that can help keep you out of extreme error.

Just going to throw this out, Roid. A lot of the things I'm hearing from you in this thread are the perfect opposite to Biblical/Christian knowledge--doctrine/truth. Not necessarily opposite to what is taught in churches (most churches are not the standard for Biblical truth in our day), but what I have learned on my own, from my Dad, and from anyone who really cared about Biblical truth. I'm trying to avoid being figurative here--I don't just mean that you're really down on Christianity--I am saying that your claims and arguments evidence an origin that is contrary to Biblical truth by design. This means two things, in my mind. First that's too convenient for everything you say to actually be the truth (unless everything in Christianity and in the Bible is specifically somehow anti-true by design). The second which may not mean as much to you, pertains to your inspiration, and that of the material you've been exposed to--the Bible talks about a specific spirit of anti-Christ. The church that you came out of--the Jehovas Witnesses (if I remember correctly), has anti-Christ elements in its doctrinal makeup. I'd go into a lot more detail if I were trying to convince anyone, but instead I hope that you will remember this observation sometime down the road if what I'm saying bears out.

The fact that your own special brand of Christianity doesn't agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses' brand (or any other brand) is a good enough reason to believe neither are worth a damn; just for the simple fact this alleged all-knowing, all-powerful god is incapable of relaying universal principals properly to his creation. INB4 No True Scotsman fallacy. I'd love to see you duke it out with a Jehovah's Witnesses. It would be like when fanboys of any fictional work get into debates, like who is more bad-ass, Optimus Prime or Megatron? -- but way less interesting because the bible is pretty weak material.

Your imagination is running away with you, Vision. And as usual your derision makes use of an incomplete picture of Biblical history. I'm sure before the fall God communicated with man just fine. Here we are, after the fall, and you blame God for men's ignorance. The truth is man is not listening, and wouldn't like what he heard even if he took his fingers out of his ears and his enemies ceased shouting lies. God is not going to bully anyone into being righteous.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:God is not going to bully anyone into being righteous.

Except that's what he actually does in the bible. At every turn he is holding eternal damnation over your head. He's the ultimate bully. Do exactly what he says or burn in hell.

You're reversing the order to suit your argument. The Bible teaches that mankind has been separated from God because of rebellion and sin. We're damned. Simple as that. What Adam and Eve did is trivialized by your bull**** perspective (if you even take it into account).

vision wrote:The fact that your own special brand of Christianity doesn't agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses' brand (or any other brand) is a good enough reason to believe neither are worth a damn; just for the simple fact this alleged all-knowing, all-powerful god is incapable of relaying universal principals properly to his creation. INB4 No True Scotsman fallacy. I'd love to see you duke it out with a Jehovah's Witnesses. It would be like when fanboys of any fictional work get into debates, like who is more bad-ass, Optimus Prime or Megatron? -- but way less interesting because the bible is pretty weak material.

heh... Well compared to most of the BS that gets posted on these boards as srs bzns, I'd say the Bible is doing pretty well. =)