> 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.

> 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

>
>