SkyEyes wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:38 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. 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.
>
>
> 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.
At that point they needn't have known the nature of God's command. God
said no and they responded as a dog might when it senses the danger of
fire yet sniffs it anyway and gets burned.
>
> 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.
They had free will, it just hadn't matured in experience. Free will
learns by experience.
>
>
>>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.
Your existence is all the evidence needed to prove God's existence.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
Above.
>
>
>>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).
>
>
> 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."
The Garden is allegory set for human minds that can't by nature know
God's means of creation. Man has no other way of knowing God's design
in using the Garden as preparation for the passing of the spiritual into
the mundane.
>
>
>> 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.
There is no 'everlasting torture' in my Bible: The Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy). What is the permanent torture you as your own
little god have devised for yourself? Think on that for awhile.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.
Wrong, dearheart, God created a world that humans can survive. That you
are here is testament to that process. Thank God for your life instead
of envying and hating Him.
>
>
>>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.
I see, in your eyes it is nature that is the bad actor, since you
believe there is no God. Why then do you worship darwinian nature,
seeing as how you ascribe to it all your suffering?
>
>
>> 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.
Your existence is evidence of God's existence.
>
> 2. That any part of human consciousness continues after death.
My guide: the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy) makes it clear
that there is no 'continuation of consciousness' after death.
>
> 3. That there are realms called "heaven" and "hell"
My guide: the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy) makes it clear
that there is no after life '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.
Sorry to disabuse you of your fantasy, dearheart but your hell (of your
own making) is perpetual insanity, in the fact that as an atheist you
are obsessed with the need to continually prove to yourself that
something you believe doesn't exist, doesn't exist. There is a clinical
term for that sort of mental disorder.
>
>>>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.
>
>
> 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.
Yada, yada.
>
> If you can't do it, or don't care to, kindly cut alt.atheism out of
> your headers.
Don't understand how newsgroups work? Don't want crossposts? Get a
moderator who will block them. Or you can block or just not read them
yourself. Know thyself.
>
>
>> Adam and Eve were given a
>>choice.
>
>
> Without a working knowledge of the difference between good and evil,
> there was NO choice.
Cognizance without choice does not exist.
>
>
>> 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?
Projection suits you.
>
>
A little self editing, eh?
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> Why? Be specific.
Projection suits you.
>
>
>> 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???
Why not? You worship the darwinian Nature monster, don't you?
>
>
>> 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.
Wrong again. You are truly ignorant, aren't you?
*You* certainly
> haven't done it.
When you're right, you're right.
>
>
>>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.
Fraid you're both in the same boat, dearheart.
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
>
> 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.
You're saying that God is not an issue with atheists? LOL
>
> Unless he has evidence of such a being, why should we believe it?
Why not? You believe in the myth that you come from slime, don't you?
>
> And why should be medium make any difference?
Huh?
>
> Once again, you attempt to deflect attention away from what I asked
> you.
Just what is it that you are asking?
>
> Please provide evidence that *any* supernatural being exists.
Above.
>
>
>> 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?
>
>
> 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.
And you could point to any evidence to the contrary. LOL
>
> 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.
Perhaps God is not interested in convincing humans of things they are
not by nature capable of understanding.
>
> 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.
Now, that's a bit of convoluted human logic that proves man's inability
to ever understand the nature of his existence.
>
>
>> 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.
God speaks clearly to universal man in every language in the world ih
the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy). That you don't read or
understand it is no fault of His. Free will, y'know.
>
> 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?
Why doesn't the darwinian nature God you worship accomplish the feat?
Could it be it has no desire to do so?
>
>
>> 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.
So, you have hallucinations... no surprise.
>
>
>> 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?
>
>
> 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.
Faith in God needs no proof, exactly in the way you need no proof of the
myth you believe in.
>
>
>>>>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.
According to your reasoning, you'd have no choice.
>>
>>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.
As I said, darwinian myth leaves no room for choice.
