On Mar 3, 11:38Â am, Michae...@
gmail.com 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. Â The old testament
>>>>>>> paints a clear picture that forgiveness could only come through the
>>>>>>> shedding of blood.
>
>>>>>> So tell me something: Â 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. Â 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. Â According to the bible, they were
>> innocent - they lacked all knowledge of the difference between good
>> and evil (right and wrong). Â That knowledge is what the Tree of
>> Knowledge was supposed to give them, remember?
>
> Your statements are some what at odds. Â 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.
No, I don't think they existed *at all*. Apparently you have a
problem reading for comprehension. Let me make it as clear as I
possibly can. I'll try to use little words.
I don't believe the Garden of Eden story is anything but a myth,
*BUT*
For the *sake of the "argument" (that's when two people disagree on a
topic, and have a talk about it), I'll go along with you for a moment.
Are you with me so far, Michael? This is an "as-if" discussion.
Okay.
The bible says that Adam and Eve didn't have the knowledge of the
difference between good and evil - which is the same as saying they
didn't know the difference between right and wrong. That knowledge is
what the Tree of Knowledge was supposed to give you if you ate its
fruit.
So, do you understand me so far? Get out your bible and look this up,
if necessary.
So: Adam and Even didn't know the difference between right and wrong.
If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, then the
concept of obedience (that is to say, "doing what you're told") is
meaningless.
Take a minute or two, as necessary, and think about that.
Now, that means that Adam and Eve were incapable of making an informed
decision about whether or not to obey your god's command, and that
means they DIDN'T HAVE FREE WILL.
Got that? They *didn't* have free will. You don't have free will if
you don't know the difference between right and wrong.
> God's purpose for creating free will (and what it is) is not a simple
> subject, I admit.
What's not simple is your ability to provide evidence that a god
actually exists. Unless and until you do that, there's no point in
discussing what you call "free will" and whether or not any god gave
it us.
> Â But in short the purpose was to bring glory to
> God. Â 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.
First provide evidence that a god - any god - actually exists. Then
we can discuss whether or not it "created" us, and whether or not we
have bitching rights.
> That being said, God wished to express His love towards us. Â This
> could not be done without granting us free will. Â While God to not
> test Adam and Eve, He did allow them to be tempted. Â Their failure did
> them harm (not God).
Once again, I'm going along with you for the sake of the discussion.
Adam and Eve never actually existed.
Having said that, this god of yours is supposed to be all-knowing. If
that were indeed the case, he would have known before he set the
system up that Adam and Eve would fail because they DIDN'T KNOW THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. Got that? So setting up the
system the way he did, and creating Adam and Eve in such a way that
they were *bound* to fail, proves that your god, if it actually
existed, would be a being of immense evil. There's nothing about the
Adam and Eve myth that smacks of anything remotely resembling "love."
> Â 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.
By sending every member of the human race who does not stumble upon
exactly the right belief system into everlasting torment.
Un-huh. Great, loving god you've got there. That's not discipline,
by the way. Discipline is a temporary thing, and when you learn your
lesson, the discipline stops. Everlasting torture is just sadism. If
you think that there's anything *loving* about a god who would condemn
anyone to everlasting torture, then you are one sick son of a bitch.
> The eternal punishment mentioned in the Bible is the natural result of
> that sin. Â God has given each a choice. Â It is not God choosing
> punishment for us, but rather us choosing to reject God.
Once again: this is all mythical, magical, superstitious crap, but:
The ultimate choice seems to have been god's, not man's. Your god
chose to set up the system in such a way as to produce the maximum
number of beings for it to torture everlastingly. If your god
actually existed, it would be the worst monster in the universe.
> I hear angst in your comments which boil down to a basic assertion
> that if you were God you would have done things differently.
Project much?
What you are hearing, Michael, is total distain for your sick,
demented theology.
And yes, any god that couldn't have done things *much* differently
would be a monster, not a god, no matter how many supernatural powers
it had.
> Â 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.
Pride was the very first sin??? According to Genesis, disobedience
was the very first sin. Get your story straight, will ya?
Now, as far as salvation goes: *first* you need to provide evidence
of the following:
1. That any god exists.
2. That any part of human consciousness continues after death.
3. That there are realms called "heaven" and "hell"
Unless and until you can do that, all your prattle about "salvation"
is just so much theological masturbation.
Now please try to address my challenges and stop wandering into your
own theological side-trips.
> Of course if you do not believe in God, I'm not sure why you would
> even concern yourself with such things.
The only time I concern myself with such things is when arrogant, rude
theists like yourself come into alt.atheism and preach. In meat life,
it never comes up, as I hang out with rational people.
>> 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. Â 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. Â 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.
And *your* comments seem to disregard the fact that I require you to
provide evidence that a god even exists before we start knitting your
theological comforter.
So, YET AGAIN: Please provide evidence that a god actually exists.
Once you do that, we can go on to talk about something else.
If you can't do it, or don't care to, kindly cut alt.atheism out of
your headers.
>Â Adam and Eve were given a
> choice.
Without a working knowledge of the difference between good and evil,
there was NO choice.
> Â They knew what they were doing was wrong
No, they didn't. They couldn't have. Please try actually reading
Genesis, and then actually reading what I've written. I know it's
hard, but try *thinking*, instead of just regurgitating baseless
theology, okay?
>>> 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. Â 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? Â How vicious and malevolent? Â What a hateful monster your
>> god would be, if it actually existed?
>
>> Obviously, you don't. Â 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.
Why? Be specific.
> Â Â 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).
Are you serious???
Do you mean to imply that if your god were to exist that it might in
fact be a monster, but I should worship it anyway???
> Â Any rational being who admits to a reasonable
> possibility of an all powerful entity,
So far, nobody in the history of the world has provided one single
piece of evidence that an all-powerful entity exists. *You* certainly
haven't done it.
> would also conclude that you
> should not "spit in His eye".
The fact that you would worship a monster before denouncing it says
*way* more about you and your moral code than it does about me and
mine. It's called "integrity," but that might be too tough a word for
you.
>>> Â However, this gift
>>> had a cost associated with it. Â That cost was sacrifice - His
>>> sacrifice. Â 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. Â If you have any evidence that a god exists,
>> please post it right here. Â 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. Â 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.
How so? We atheists are sitting here in our newsgroup, which exists
for us to discuss our own issues and concerns, and a theist barges in
here and starts telling us we have to believe in his version of a
magical, supernatural being.
Unless he has evidence of such a being, why should we believe it?
And why should be medium make any difference?
Once again, you attempt to deflect attention away from what I asked
you.
Please provide evidence that *any* supernatural being exists.
> Â In these
> same forums we have people denying everything from well documented
> historical facts to their own physical existence. Â Â So what type of
> proof would you accept?
Well, for starters, you could point to data that says,
incontrovertably, that your supernatural being interacts with the
physical world. You could describe how a created universe differs
from an uncreated universe, and point out the existence of those
criteria in our universe.
It's been pointed out on this newsgroup many, many times by many, many
people that *if* a god exists, and *if* it wants us to "believe in"
it, and *if* it is indeed omniscient and omnipotent and
omnibenevolent, as advertisted, that it knows *exactly* what it would
take to convince each and every person on earth.
The fact that such convincing actions/data/events is not forthcoming
is evidence of one of two things:
1. That this god doesn't *care* if we believe in it or not,
~OR~
2. That no god exists.
>Â Â Do you require a pillar of fire or possibly
> a booming  voice?
God simultaneously appearing world-wide and speaking clearly to
earth's people in every language would be a good start.
Personally, for me it would be much simpler: My Fella, a Vietnam vet,
is a double amputee. If god could kindly regenerate his missing parts
instantaneously, I would personally take that as an indisputable proof
that a god exists.
There, that's simple enough, isn't it?
> Â Maybe you would like an angle to show up and work
> with an ultimatum "believe or else"?
Nah, I'd just think I was having an hallucination and get myself to a
doctor pronto.
> Â I'm not sure how I can provide
> any of those things over the internet. Â I would offer this one thing.
> If you really wanted to know if God exists, simply ask Him to prove
> himself to you? Â What do you have to lose?
Oh, you idiot. I was a theist - a born-again christian - for the
first 19 years of my life! Do you think that I *didn't* ask god to
prove himself to me?
And I'm not the only atheist on this newsgroup who is an ex-christian
and who asked god to reveal himself. There's a shitload of us.
Fortunately, unlike yourself, I learned a little skill called
"critical thinking," and over time, my theism fell away because it
couldn't stand up to scrutiny.
>>> My definition of evil precludes that word being associated with God.
>
>> Then you haven't thought this whole problem out very thoroughly, have
>> you? Â 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. Â But that is really just a matter of semantics. Â 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. Â I am deadly serious: Â any supernatural being that would
>> set up the system you have described is completely, unarguably evil,
>> in every sense of the word. Â 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.
Actually, no, there's no choice involved. It's simple logic. Some
things are as plain as the nose on my face.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
