> On Mar 3, 1:48 pm, "Mary Hogan"
zoominternet.net> wrote:>>> On Feb 29, 4:40 pm, SkyEyes
cox.net> wrote:>>>> On Feb 29, 8:54 am, Michae...@
gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 28, 6:04 pm, SkyEyes
cox.net> wrote:>>>>>> On Feb 28, 3:19 pm, Michae...@
gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 3:25 pm, SkyEyes
cox.net> wrote:>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 5:01 pm, Michae...@
gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> From what source do you have the understanding that the
>>>>>>>>> Messiah
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> not have to suffer and die to redeem his people. The old
>>>>>>>>> testament
>>>>>>>>> paints a clear picture that forgiveness could only come
>>>>>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> shedding of blood.
>>
>>>>>>>> So tell me something: did your god set up this system, or is
>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>> subject to it?
>>
>>>>>>>> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>>>>>>>> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>>>>>>>> skyeyes nine at cox dot net
>>
>>>>>>> Setup
>>
>>>>>> So he set up the system in such a way that *only* blood would wipe
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> sin?
>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>>> Do you realize that this statement is an admission that your god
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> evil?
>>
>>>>>> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>>>>>> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>>>>>> skyeyes nine at cox dot net
>>
>>>>> God gave mankind something that is difficult to understand -
>>>>> freewill. Because the very first man and woman used that gift to
>>>>> turn
>>>>> against God, God provided another gift.
>>
>>>> I don't believe for one moment that the whole biblical Garden of Eden
>>>> story is anything but a fable, but for the sake of the argument, I'm
>>>> going to discuss what you've said *as though I did believe it were
>>>> true.*
>>
>>>> Adam and Eve did *not* have free will (two words, cupcake) any more
>>>> than a 2-year-old child has it. According to the bible, they were
>>>> innocent - they lacked all knowledge of the difference between good
>>>> and evil (right and wrong). That knowledge is what the Tree of
>>>> Knowledge was supposed to give them, remember?
>>
>>> Your statements are some what at odds. It appears that you don't
>>> think that Adam and Eve had a free will and that God is evil for
>>> letting them have free will.
>>> God's purpose for creating free will (and what it is) is not a simple
>>> subject, I admit. But in short the purpose was to bring glory to
>>> God. Also just as a pot has no right to complain to the potter with
>>> regards to its form, we also have not right to complain to God.
>>
>>> That being said, God wished to express His love towards us. This
>>> could not be done without granting us free will. While God to not
>>> test Adam and Eve, He did allow them to be tempted. Their failure did
>>> them harm (not God). God's correction (discipline) was to bring about
>>> a change in them (for their own good). Once God's creation was
>>> polluted with sin, he needed to impress on human kind the danger that
>>> sin entailed.
>>> The eternal punishment mentioned in the Bible is the natural result of
>>> that sin. God has given each a choice. It is not God choosing
>>> punishment for us, but rather us choosing to reject God.
>>
>>> I hear angst in your comments which boil down to a basic assertion
>>> that if you were God you would have done things differently. It would
>>> be a shame to reject God's offer of salvation, just because your own
>>> pride says you could do a better job them God. Ironically, pride was
>>> the very first sin.
>>
>>> Of course if you do not believe in God, I'm not sure why you would
>>> even concern yourself with such things.
>>
>>>> Unfortunately, unless you know right from wrong, the concept of
>>>> "obedience" is meaningless.
>>
>>>> Furthermore your god, being omniscient, knew *before* he created A&E
>>>> that they would slip up.
>>
>>>> Furthermore, according to you (and according to orthodox christian
>>>> doctrine), your god was the one who set up the whole system whereby an
>>>> innocent mistake merits everlasting punishment, *and* that the mistake
>>>> be inherited by all of A&E's descendants, i.e., the entire human
>>>> race. If what you claim were true, your god could only be
>>>> characterized as a malevolent monster who set the entire farce in
>>>> motion to provide himself with a maximum number of humans to torture
>>>> everlastingly in hell. He would, of course, have known all along that
>>>> the vast majority of humans would not, for whatever reason, manage to
>>>> stumble upon the "correct" set of beliefs that would induce your god
>>>> to liberate them from their everlasting punishment.
>>
>>> Your comments seem to disregard the seriousness of sin and the
>>> willfulness of those who commit it. Adam and Eve were given a
>>> choice. They knew what they were doing was wrong and they chose to do
>>> it anyways. In so doing they forever tainted humanity with a Sin
>>> nature.
>>> At the point when they sinned, God could have said "they screwed up
>>> and I will simply destroy all of this and start over", but He didn't.
>>> Because Adam and Eve had changed (of their own free will) God could
>>> not simply overlook it. If I own a dog that I have had for a long
>>> time and then one day that dogs starts biting me, I cannot just ignore
>>> the dogs actions. If I chose to punish the dog, it is not my fault
>>> the dog does not think the punishment is fair. Either the dog will
>>> chose to change its ways or it will have to be destroyed.
>>
>>>>> The opportunity to have our
>>>>> sin tarnished relationship be made right with God.
>>
>>>> Your god, if he existed, could quite simply have set up the system so
>>>> that sin would not be inherited. He could also have quite simply said
>>>> "I forgive you" and let it go at that.
>>
>>>> He could also have refrained from setting the system up in the first
>>>> place, since he knew before he did so how many people were going to be
>>>> caught in his net.
>>
>>>> Do you *ever* stop to consider how thoroughly ridiculous all of your
>>>> theology is? How vicious and malevolent? What a hateful monster your
>>>> god would be, if it actually existed?
>>
>>>> Obviously, you don't. I suggest that you spend some time doing so.
>>
>>> I do not mean to be criticizing your intelligence (although I'm sure
>>> you will harbor no similar restraint :) ), but I disagree with your
>>> conclusions. But I question the logic that you would use to
>>> conclude that you are better off spurning God (whether He is a loving
>>> one or not). Any rational being who admits to a reasonable
>>> possibility of an all powerful entity, would also conclude that you
>>> should not "spit in His eye".
>>
>>>>> However, this gift
>>>>> had a cost associated with it. That cost was sacrifice - His
>>>>> sacrifice. All other sacrifices leading up to His were meant to
>>>>> show
>>>>> us how important His sacrifice was.
>>
>>>> Why did got, if he exists, set up a system that required an innocent
>>>> to be sacrificed for a guilty person?
>>
>>>>> As to the "why" of why God did all that He did, its best to ask Him
>>>>> that question.
>>
>>>> There's nobody to ask. If you have any evidence that a god exists,
>>>> please post it right here. You'll be the first to accomplish that, by
>>>> the way; I've been asking theists of all flavors to do it since 1996,
>>>> and so far, none have succeeded. Precious few have even tried.
>>
>>> It is ironic that in a forum that is merely the typing of text that
>>> you request positive proof to the existence of anything. In these
>>> same forums we have people denying everything from well documented
>>> historical facts to their own physical existence. So what type of
>>> proof would you accept? Do you require a pillar of fire or possibly
>>> a booming voice? Maybe you would like an angle to show up and work
>>> with an ultimatum "believe or else"? I'm not sure how I can provide
>>> any of those things over the internet. I would offer this one thing.
>>> If you really wanted to know if God exists, simply ask Him to prove
>>> himself to you? What do you have to lose?
>>
>>>>> My definition of evil precludes that word being associated with God.
>>
>>>> Then you haven't thought this whole problem out very thoroughly, have
>>>> you? Any god who set up such a system as you describe is the very
>>>> *essence* of evil.
>>
>>>>> I'm sure you could come up with your own definition that would be
>>>>> different. But that is really just a matter of semantics. Did you
>>>>> have some deeper meaning other then just word games?
>>
>>>> Oh, I assure you, I am not into word games - they seem to be your
>>>> specialty. I am deadly serious: any supernatural being that would
>>>> set up the system you have described is completely, unarguably evil,
>>>> in every sense of the word. Even if you *could* present evidence that
>>>> it existed, if it were the being you describe, I would not worship it.
>>
>>> That is your choice to make.
>>
>>>> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>>>> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>>>> skyeyes nine at cox dot net
>>
>> WOW, SEE THIS MAKES MARY HOGAN A KINDERGARTENER IN WORLD OF
>> CLARITY!!!!!!!!
>> This is what I'm hungry for!!! Aspaklaria. And this is only a fraction,
>> Michael is only a fraction of his Rabbi, and his Rabbi's Rabbi!!!!
>
> I think I know what I'm typing, but I'm not sure what you are
> reading. I am not talking about a secret level of experience/
> conscientiousness that can only be obtained through some sort of Zen.
> I'm talking about a one on one relationship with God.
> You don't know me and my existence is only known via the words I type,
> but you have invested enough time to (partially) read my thoughts and
> then ... comment on them. I believe having a personal proof of God
> requires little else. Attempt to talk to Him. Ask Him to prove
> Himself to you.
Yeah, just another kookbucket.
>
