the stupidest Bible story
YoungVegas
> Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
> > david asman wrote:
> >
> > > Graham Kennedy wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Alex wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>On 21 Aug 2003 03:12:07 -0700, bobcr...@optusnet.com.au (Bob
> > >>>Crowley) wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>"JDub" <jwhip...@attbi.the_pooch.com> wrote in message news:<DXY0b.159390$cF.56935@rwcrnsc53>...
> > >>>>Memorising the planets
>
> > >>>>from the sun outwards can be told as a nonsense sentence - "My very
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>elderly mother just sat up near pluto."
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Can anyone guess what this sentence symbolizes?
> > >>>
> > >>>"King Phillip called out for great spaghetti!"
> > >>
> > >>No. How about "Oh Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me
> > >
> > >
> > > How about, "Ed Asner Digs Graves Before Eating?"
> >
> > I don't know *any* of these, except mine! I feel
> > stupid now...
> >
> > Anyway, answers time. Mine gives the type classification
> > letters of stars in order - O, B, A, F, G, K, M.
> >
>
> I didn't no the others, although I should have know, yours
> from playing Traveller for so long. Mine represents the notes
> that a each string is tuned to on a traditionally tuned
> six string guitar. . .
>
dude- "Oh be a fine girl, kiss me" for stars makes perfect sense.
People kiss under stars and all.
But "Ed Asner..." seriously I've forgotten it already. It's so much
easier to just remember E A D G B.
blue girl with white hair and red eyes
> On 21 Aug 2003 03:12:07 -0700, bobcr...@optusnet.com.au (Bob
> Crowley) wrote:
>
> >"JDub" <jwhip...@attbi.the_pooch.com> wrote in message news:<DXY0b.159390$cF.56935@rwcrnsc53>...
> > Memorising the planets
> >from the sun outwards can be told as a nonsense sentence - "My very
> >elderly mother just sat up near pluto."
>
> Can anyone guess what this sentence symbolizes?
>
> "King Phillip called out for great spaghetti!"
what about:
Sam Smith And Henry King Did Buy Some Cotton At Various Cotton Gins?
Doug Semler
<nyarrl...@antisocial.com> slavered, and posted this:
I recognize this from something about rituals of Texas Masons????
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?
Doug Semler
and posted this:
> Alex <sup...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:<j7d9kv84u8chdvnlq...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>> Can anyone guess what this sentence symbolizes?
>>
>> "King Phillip called out for great spaghetti!"
>
> Family, Genus, Species.
>
> A few more:
>
> Oh My Such Good Apple Pie
Dicarboxylic Acids, but I think there are three missing. (the end is "Sweet
as Sugar"). I can't remember them though, it's been something like 12 years
since my last Chem class :).
>
> For All Purchases Buy
I don't know this one...
>
> ROY G BIV
Colors of the Visible Spectrum: Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo,
Violet
>
> The Girls Can Flirt And Other Queer Things Can Do.
Mohs' Scale of Mineral Hardness (geology): Talc, Gypsum, Calcite, Flourite,
Apatite, Orthoclase, Quartz, Topacate, Coradrum, Diamond
(spelling? It's been a while)
> Crusty Old Sailors Don't Make Perverted Propositions, They Just Can't
> Talk Quietly
>
Geologic time scale (periods) from Paleozoic to Cenozoic. Don't quite
remember it put that way, but...
Cambrian, Ordocivian, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian (Carboniferous),
Pennsylvanian (Carboniferous), Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretasceous,
Tertiary, Quaternary.
Once again, spelling? :)
> Please Ease Off My Private Parts Hurt
Epochs of the Cenozoic: Paleocene, Eocene, Ogilocene, Miocene, Plyocene,
Plestocene, Holicene
Once again, spelling?
(looks like someone is into Geology lol)
QBaal
> Mani Deli wrote:
> >
> > So which in your opinion is the stupidest and don’t
> > forget to sight reasons?
>
> That jesus died for our sins has got to be the stupidest
> thing I've ever heard. An omniscient, omnipotent, god has to
> create a son and have him tortured to death (but he can't
> die because it's a god) to forgive us for a sin that we did
> not commit. Would you have a kid then kill it in order to
> forgive me for a crime against you that I did not commit?
> OK, let's say that all of humanity is responsible for the
> sin that Adam and Eve committed. That doesn't help any since
> this god still needed to see his son tortured in order to
> forgive us. Why not just forgive?
Which is basically what a lot of modern critical Christian
theologians would say. No way does the forgiveness of God depend on
Jesus dying/bleeding on
a cross on Calvary. Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
God's
compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
proceeds.
God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
is to forgive. End of story.
However, ancient and modern Christians seem to crave solid,
material, factual religious "realities." So the religious truths are
wrapped in
"facts" and important religious messages, though myth, are
historicized for
poplar consumption. God is forever reaching out to accomodate our
weaknesses.
Weatherwax
"Doug Semler" wrote
> Jon Oblad <jon...@hotmail.com> posted
> > Alex <sup...@microsoft.com> wrote
I will join the fun.
It has been almost forty years since I studied electronics in the
Navy, but I still remember: Black Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But
Violet Gives Willingly. Get Some Now.
To be politically correct, they gave it to us as "Bad Boys . . .
" but its easiar to remember this way.
While studying Trignometry in college I was given the mnemonic:
Oscar Had A Heap Of Apples.
But the way I learned it in the Navy was: Oscar Had A Hunk Of
Ass.
--
Wax
Mani Deli
> Which is basically what a lot of modern critical Christian
>theologians would say.
They hardly agree on anything.
> No way does the forgiveness of God depend on
>Jesus dying/bleeding on
>a cross on Calvary.
Depends which executive of the superstition business you talk to.
> Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
>God's compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
>proceeds.
Obviously?
>God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
>is to forgive. End of story.
Neither you or anyone knows anything about god's nature. Most present
wars are about sides that make different claims.
> God is forever reaching out to accomodate our
>weaknesses.
He hasn't ever been around when needed.
Never underestimate the gullibility of the faithful.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Doug Semler
slavered, and posted this:
>
> I will join the fun.
>
> It has been almost forty years since I studied electronics in the
> Navy, but I still remember: Black Boys Rape Our Young Girls, But
> Violet Gives Willingly. Get Some Now.
Order of colors on a resistor (start at zero)
Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Grey White
The last three are the multipliers
Gold, Silver, Number (of zeros in the color is the multiplier)
The funny thing is, I found it easier just to remember the colors of the
rainbow with 2 additions minus the indigo...
>
> To be politically correct, they gave it to us as "Bad Boys . . .
> " but its easiar to remember this way.
>
> While studying Trignometry in college I was given the mnemonic:
> Oscar Had A Heap Of Apples.
>
> But the way I learned it in the Navy was: Oscar Had A Hunk Of
> Ass.
SOH-CAH-TOA (Pronounced like an Indian Name)
Sine= Opposite over Hypotenuse, Cosine = Adjecent over Hypotenuse, and
Tangent = Opposite over Adjacent.
Howsabout:
Fat Chuck Goes Down And Eats Betty?
Ineedmoney
"QBaal" <qbaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:97a992d7.03091...@posting.google.com...
Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
> God's
> compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
> proceeds.
> God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
> is to forgive. End of story.
When the hell is God ever mercifull in the OT????!! "in his nature"??? What
a bunch of crap.
Ed
David
> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote
>> Mani Deli wrote:
>>
>>> So which in your opinion is the stupidest and don’t
>>> forget to sight reasons?
>>
>> That jesus died for our sins has got to be the
>> stupidest thing I've ever heard. An omniscient,
>> omnipotent, god has to create a son and have him
>> tortured to death (but he can't die because it's a god)
>> to forgive us for a sin that we did not commit. Would
>> you have a kid then kill it in order to forgive me for
>> a crime against you that I did not commit? OK, let's
>> say that all of humanity is responsible for the sin
>> that Adam and Eve committed. That doesn't help any
>> since this god still needed to see his son tortured in
>> order to forgive us. Why not just forgive?
>
> Which is basically what a lot of modern critical
> Christian theologians would say.
I doubt it. If they were honest in their criticism of the
bible and jesus, they'd cease to be christian.
> No way does the forgiveness of God depend on Jesus
> dying/bleeding on a cross on Calvary....
That makes the whole jesus farce even more inane.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
QBaal
Obviously, the Christian guru of the highest rank.
QBaal
I am not denying the Old Testament, as regards God's nature, is a
mixed
bag. But if you read Amos, Isaiah, the Psalms, etc. etc, God's is the
compassionate, merciful and forgiving One. Ask the Christians, Jews
and Muslims. A fair percentage of the world's population. Atheists,
agnostics
and sceptics, by definition, what do they know of God's nature. Nada!
Weatherwax
"Doug Semler" <doug_...@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
message news:sPCdnQE2gK5...@wideopenwest.com...
> At some point in the past, Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
> slavered, and posted this:
>
> >
> > I will join the fun.
> >
> > It has been almost forty years since I studied electronics in
the
> > Navy, but I still remember: Black Boys Rape Our Young
> > Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly. Get Some Now.
>
> Order of colors on a resistor (start at zero)
> Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Grey White
>
> The last three are the multipliers
> Gold, Silver, Number (of zeros in the color is the multiplier)
Almost right, except that the third band would be the multiplier.
The last three colors are the tolorance and would be on the
fourth band: God 5%, Silver 10%, and 20% if there was "no
band". But with today's printed circuits, you rarely see those
bands any more.
> The funny thing is, I found it easier just to remember the
colors of the
> rainbow with 2 additions minus the indigo...
What is "indigo" anyway? Something of a bluish violet, rather
than a reddish violet. Could you identify it if you saw it?
>
> >
> > To be politically correct, they gave it to us as "Bad Boys .
. .
> > " but its easiar to remember this way.
> >
> > While studying Trignometry in college I was given the
mnemonic:
> > Oscar Had A Heap Of Apples.
>
> >
> > But the way I learned it in the Navy was: Oscar Had A Hunk
Of
> > Ass.
>
>
> SOH-CAH-TOA (Pronounced like an Indian Name)
> Sine= Opposite over Hypotenuse, Cosine = Adjecent over
> Hypotenuse, and Tangent = Opposite over Adjacent.
Except that it's hard to remember names of indians. I get him
confused with SAH-COH-TAO. But "Oscar Had A Hunk Of Ass" has
that off-color touch that makes it hard to forget.
>
>
> Howsabout:
>
> Fat Chuck Goes Down And Eats Betty?
You have me on that one.
--
Wax
Weatherwax
> > > Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
> > > God's compassion, merciful nature is the springboard
> > > from which forgivness proceeds. God's nature, not some
> > > historical event, or mythology for that matter,
> > > is to forgive. End of story.
> >
> > When the hell is God ever mercifull in the OT????!! "in
> > his nature"??? What a bunch of crap.
> >
> > Ed
>
> I am not denying the Old Testament, as regards God's nature,
> is a mixed bag. But if you read Amos, Isaiah, the Psalms, etc.
> etc, God's is the compassionate, merciful and forgiving One.
> Ask the Christians, Jews and Muslims. A fair percentage of
> the world's population. Atheists, agnostics and sceptics, by
> definition, what do they know of God's nature. Nada!
How often do you hear people quote from Amos, Isaiah, or the
Psalms? Right now people want to put up copies of the Ten
Commandments in courthouses, classrooms and parks. There is
little compassion, mercy or forgiveness in those.
--
Wax
Libertarius
QBaal wrote:
> "Ineedmoney" <ma...@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bk0dp2$fc2$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "QBaal" <qbaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:97a992d7.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
> > > God's
> > > compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
> > > proceeds.
> > > God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
> > > is to forgive. End of story.
> >
> > When the hell is God ever mercifull in the OT????!! "in his nature"??? What
> > a bunch of crap.
> >
> > Ed
>
> I am not denying the Old Testament, as regards God's nature, is a
> mixed
> bag. But if you read Amos, Isaiah, the Psalms, etc. etc, God's is the
> compassionate, merciful and forgiving One.
===>That only shows that the writers compiled in the Bible
did not have the same kind of "GOD" in mind.
> Ask the Christians, Jews
> and Muslims. A fair percentage of the world's population. Atheists,
> agnostics
> and sceptics, by definition, what do they know of God's nature. Nada!
===>"God's nature" is whatever you decide. THAT is what you find in the
Bible! -- L.
Jon Oblad
[...]
> > A few more:
> >
> > Oh My Such Good Apple Pie
>
> Dicarboxylic Acids, but I think there are three missing. (the end is "Sweet
> as Sugar"). I can't remember them though, it's been something like 12 years
> since my last Chem class :).
Oxalic, Malonic, Succinic, Glutaric, Adipic, and then I forget the
last one. I had remembered it as Propionic acid, but see below.
> > For All Purchases Buy
>
> I don't know this one...
The first four carboxylic acids, plain version. Formic, Acetic,
Propionic, Butyric.
All the rest were essentially correct.
- Jon Oblad
QBaal
It's a matter of history - many of the early Jesus groups and
Christos ones
too were supressed by those Christians carrying the flag of orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy was allied with the Roman state, and others, after
Constantine c. 325. Among the supressed were many intelligent,
creative Christians extremely
devoted to following Jesus and keeping his authentic sayings. And not
in love, like the Orthodoxers, with a literal understanding of the
gospels, Mark, Luke, and Matthew. As might does not necessarily make
right so ecclesiastical victory/profit does not guarantee Truth and
God's will done, though it may appear otherwise to millions, .
I would not call the authentic Jesus thing inane or a farce. It
is, of course, all too human. Still, God is at work in it all. So I
hope.
Even today, if we could capture every authentic word and act of
Jesus
and start anew the Christian religion, I would not guarantee the
enterprise
would continue another 2000 years without some long-term jerk around
of the masses by their ecclesiastical masters, probably in one way or
the other in cahoots with political authorities, elected or otherwise.
Bottom line, trust God and not man or his works.
Christopher A. Lee
> Bottom line, trust God and not man or his works.
What a remarkably stupid thing to say on an atheist newsgroup.
Doug Semler
slavered, and posted this:
> "Doug Semler" <doug_...@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
> message news:sPCdnQE2gK5...@wideopenwest.com...
>> At some point in the past, Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
>> slavered, and posted this:
>>
>>>
>>> I will join the fun.
>>>
>>> It has been almost forty years since I studied electronics in the
>>> Navy, but I still remember: Black Boys Rape Our Young
>>> Girls, But Violet Gives Willingly. Get Some Now.
>>
>> Order of colors on a resistor (start at zero)
>> Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Grey White
>>
>> The last three are the multipliers
>> Gold, Silver, Number (of zeros in the color is the multiplier)
>
> Almost right, except that the third band would be the multiplier.
> The last three colors are the tolorance and would be on the
> fourth band: God 5%, Silver 10%, and 20% if there was "no
> band". But with today's printed circuits, you rarely see those
> bands any more.
<shrug> I can barely remember my electronic course from 11 years ago, when I
had to take the basic EE course in college for my degree...
>
>> The funny thing is, I found it easier just to remember the colors of
>> the rainbow with 2 additions minus the indigo...
>
> What is "indigo" anyway? Something of a bluish violet, rather
> than a reddish violet. Could you identify it if you saw it?
I have no idea :)
>
>>
>>>
>>> To be politically correct, they gave it to us as "Bad Boys . . .
>>> " but its easiar to remember this way.
>>>
>>> While studying Trignometry in college I was given the mnemonic:
>>> Oscar Had A Heap Of Apples.
>>
>>>
>>> But the way I learned it in the Navy was: Oscar Had A Hunk Of
>>> Ass.
>>
>>
>> SOH-CAH-TOA (Pronounced like an Indian Name)
>> Sine= Opposite over Hypotenuse, Cosine = Adjecent over
>> Hypotenuse, and Tangent = Opposite over Adjacent.
>
> Except that it's hard to remember names of indians. I get him
> confused with SAH-COH-TAO. But "Oscar Had A Hunk Of Ass" has
> that off-color touch that makes it hard to forget.
>
The reason I remember it that way is because it also reminds you which
division operation is associated with which trigonometric operation. I.e.
the way you put it, there is no help to tell you which is sine, cosine, or
tangent :).
>>
>>
>> Howsabout:
>>
>> Fat Chuck Goes Down And Eats Betty?
>
> You have me on that one.
Hint: Music
Billy Goat
> "Ineedmoney" <ma...@atmycomputer.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bk0dp2$fc2$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "QBaal" <qbaa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:97a992d7.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > Obviously, as the Old Testament makes clear -
> > > God's
> > > compassion, merciful nature is the springboard from which forgivness
> > > proceeds.
> > > God's nature, not some historical event, or mythology for that matter,
> > > is to forgive. End of story.
> >
> > When the hell is God ever mercifull in the OT????!! "in his nature"??? What
> > a bunch of crap.
> >
> > Ed
>
> I am not denying the Old Testament, as regards God's nature, is a
> mixed
> bag. But if you read Amos, Isaiah, the Psalms, etc. etc, God's is the
> compassionate, merciful and forgiving One.
But if you read Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus, God's is the jealous,
vengeful and wrathful One. Like you said, a mixed bag. Why do you
reject so much of God's own Word?
> Ask the Christians, Jews
> and Muslims. A fair percentage of the world's population. Atheists,
> agnostics
> and sceptics, by definition, what do they know of God's nature. Nada!
We know what the Bible says about God's nature. Do you have some other
source besides God's Word?
--Billy
QBaal
> On 14 Sep 2003 11:20:32 -0700, qbaa...@yahoo.com (QBaal) wrote:
>
> > Bottom line, trust God and not man or his works.
>
> What a remarkably stupid thing to say on an atheist newsgroup.
Not really many atheists have flipped into the Christian court,
especially I bet as the grim reaper approached. Heh, heh. Besides,
I am only giving you information, as in my last post here. Let's you
know how some of the modern
critical Christian thinkers operate. So stuff your remarkably
ignorant and stupid remarks. Be a terrific gentleman like me.
Christopher A. Lee
>Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<6bc9mv4lo13kpqguc...@4ax.com>...
>> On 14 Sep 2003 11:20:32 -0700, qbaa...@yahoo.com (QBaal) wrote:
>>
>> > Bottom line, trust God and not man or his works.
>>
>> What a remarkably stupid thing to say on an atheist newsgroup.
>
> Not really many atheists have flipped into the Christian court,
Are you really this stupid, or just pretending? If you bothered to use
your allegedly god-given brain for a change, you would have realised
that it was no different than telling us to trust Santa Claus not man.
But then Christians aren't known for their ability to think outside
the box.
>especially I bet as the grim reaper approached. Heh, heh. Besides,
If you wouldn't suddenly start believing in Santa Claus, why expect
atheists to suddenly start believing in your equivalent?
Remarks like yours only demonstrate how out of touch with reality you
are.
>I am only giving you information, as in my last post here. Let's you
Bullshit. All you're giving is a demonstration of your own stupidity.
>know how some of the modern
>critical Christian thinkers operate. So stuff your remarkably
>ignorant and stupid remarks. Be a terrific gentleman like me.
What "ignorant and stupid remarks"? The only ones have been yours -
you're too stupid to realise that people outside your religion don't
see its beliefs in the same light you do.
David
>> (QBaal) wrote:
>>
>>> Bottom line, trust God and not man or his works.
>>
>> What a remarkably stupid thing to say on an atheist
>> newsgroup.
>
> Not really many atheists have flipped into the Christian
The most common lie coming from christians is that they were
once Atheists.
David
No, it isn't.
> I would not call the authentic Jesus thing inane or a
> farce...
Why not? It's true.
> Even today, if we could capture every authentic word and
> act of Jesus...
Why would one want to do a silly thing like that? The guy
never existed anyway.
> Bottom line, trust God and not man or his works.
What god?
CrusaderForChrist
Hey, guys, God's nature shouldn't even be controversial.
It is clear in both the OT and NT that God is holy and
cannot stand the presence of evil and the stench of sin
(after all, He is the perfect standard of goodness, and
good cannot tolerate evil). This means that God does
judge people for what wrong they do and often executes
judgement.
This judgement, however, does not mean that God is not
loving or merciful. The Bible makes it clear that God
loves all of mankind (John 3:16). If He didn't, then
why would He send Jesus, His Messiah, into the world
to die for us (Romans 5:6-8)?
In the OT, God continually demonstrates His merciful
nature towards His people (Exodus 12:12-13,29-30) and
even towards Gentiles (Joshua 2:1-21, 7:21-25). These
are just a couple of examples of His mercy in the OT (The
Passover and Rahab the harlot's deliverance, respectively)
in the midst of judgement and tribulation. His mercy isn't
demonstrated in small portions of the Bible: it's everywhere,
in every book of the Bible! You are therefore greatly
mistaken about the Scriptures and the power of God
(Matthew 22:29): He is both merciful and just!
Where did you dig up this junk about God not being merciful
in the OT? Apparently, none of you have read the Bible
(or haven't read it close enough), otherwise you would
have clearly seen His loving and just nature.
Regarding knowing God's nature, everyone CAN know His
true nature. The Bible makes this clear (Psalm 19:1,
Isaiah 40:8, John 14:6, 1 Timothy 2:3-4). After all, if we
couldn't know what God's objective nature is, then why
should anybody believe in the Bible or any other piece of
work dealing with the divine? Believing that God's nature
is unknowable or subjective is a bogus argument: He has
clearly revealed Himself to man, and man has no excuse for
not believing in Him (Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:18-20).
If any of you have more questions, disagree with me, or think
that I am on crack or something, then I have two suggestions
for you:
1. Pray to God about it.
2. Read the Bible -- it has answers to these "problems."
I don't know of anybody who has been denied knowledge of God's
nature or existence, so you too can know what He's like and how
much Jesus Christ, God incarnate, loves you!
Indeed, I used to be an atheist like many of you, and I believed
that the Bible was full of contradictions about God's nature and
many other things. But after I received Jesus Christ as my
Lord and Savior and gave Him my life (which was never the same
afterwards), it became clear to me that the Bible was God's
inspired and inerrant Word. I was foolish in my speculations
about God being "unrighteous" and "contradictory": it is possible
for God to execute judgement and be merciful and loving at the
same time (Revelation 3:19).
Also, many of the stories of destruction and God's wrath in the
OT were examples for us today of what our sin does and what happens
when we leave God and pursue other things (1 Corinthians 10:1-12).
This whole issue is a waste of your time, thought, and life.
Clearly God is merciful and loving throughout the Bible. End of
discussion, PERIOD.
-- CrusaderForChrist, a Christian
David
>
> Hey, guys, God's nature shouldn't even be controversial.
> It is clear in both the OT and NT that God is holy and
> cannot stand the presence of evil and the stench of
And yet this god allows evil to exist. In fact this god that
"cannot stand the presence of evil" created evil.
> This judgement[sic], however, does not mean that God is not
> loving or merciful.....
Hmmm, a loving god that created evil.....
> In the OT, God continually demonstrates His merciful
> nature towards His people...
This god had no mercy for anyone other than "his" people.
> Where did you dig up this junk about God not being
> merciful in the OT?
All you have to do is read the OT>
> Regarding knowing God's nature, everyone CAN know His
> true nature....
Since this god is a human invention, yes, anyone can know
"his" true nature; just make it up like everyone else has.
> Indeed, I used to be an atheist like many of you...
Oh, too bad. You just lost any credibility you may have had
with that lie. That they used to be an Atheist is the most
common lie told by christians. Every last one of them will
make that claim if you get them talking long enough.
> Also, many of the stories of destruction and God's
> wrath...
I thought it was a merciful, loving, god? How could it have
such wrath?
> This whole issue is a waste of your time, thought, and
> life. Clearly God is merciful and loving throughout the
> Bible. End of discussion, PERIOD.
That's right. Your fantasy god is a waste of time.
Libertarius
CrusaderForChrist wrote:
===>Then you must believe Satan is good, not evil. Right?
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves
before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
The LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come?"
Then Satan answered the LORD and said,
"From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it."
etc. (Job 1:6-7 ff.) -- L.
QBaal
You don't listen well do you? I never even hinted "that people
outside your religion don't > see its beliefs in the same light you
do." In fact the
underlying main assumption underneath my original post was that many
and, especially, folk on alt. atheistm do not. Unfortunately, you
would go for
immediate war-war instead of a sane jaw-jaw stance. What do you think
I
was doing anyway? It's obvious - Christian and atheists both should
be exposed
to the new critical theology. Whether this saves your soul or your
life-style
is none of my business. However, know your enemy and know the
mouthings
of 18th century atheism will not hack it in the 21st century. You
should
be grateful that I put at your disposal the 21st century Christian
thinking which you can attack, accept or whatever as you see fit. So
forget your
penchant for invective and since you folk are heavily into nihilism -
it don't
matter much anyway one way or other. Live with it - and be at peace
my friend. Adios. I mean good... I mean so long.
Weatherwax
"Doug Semler" <doug_...@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
rather
> > than a reddish violet. Could you identify it if you saw it?
>
> I have no idea :)
I got smart and look it up in an online dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/
It stated that Indigo was part of the spectrum ranging from 420
to 450 nanometers. Violet is shorter and ranges from 380-420
nanometers. This looked good until I looked up blue and
discovered that it ranged from 420 to 490 nanometers. Now I'm
confused again. And I cant find where purple fits in.
< CLIP >
> >> Howsabout:
> >>
> >> Fat Chuck Goes Down And Eats Betty?
> >
> > You have me on that one.
>
> Hint: Music
I know absolutely nothing about music. (I do enjoy Busby
Berkeley musicals, but mostly to laugh at.)
--
Wax
Doug Semler
> "Doug Semler" <doug_...@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
> message news:EZGdnSAkyfu...@wideopenwest.com...
>> At some point in the past, Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
>>>
>>> What is "indigo" anyway? Something of a bluish violet, rather
>>> than a reddish violet. Could you identify it if you saw it?
>>
>> I have no idea :)
>
> I got smart and look it up in an online dictionary:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/
>
> It stated that Indigo was part of the spectrum ranging from 420
> to 450 nanometers. Violet is shorter and ranges from 380-420
> nanometers. This looked good until I looked up blue and
> discovered that it ranged from 420 to 490 nanometers. Now I'm
> confused again. And I cant find where purple fits in.
>
Violet is purple :)
I looked around, and it seems no one can agree on the wavelengths and also
whether indigo is an actual color lol. Personally, I think indigo was added
because Mr. BIV wanted his last name to contain a vowel, and Indigo was used
because the color of the dye obtained from the Indigofera plants was in the
ballpark...
> < CLIP >
>
>>>> Howsabout:
>>>>
>>>> Fat Chuck Goes Down And Eats Betty?
>>>
>>> You have me on that one.
>>
>> Hint: Music
>
> I know absolutely nothing about music. (I do enjoy Busby
> Berkeley musicals, but mostly to laugh at.)
It's the circle of fifths...has to do with musical keys and such...
Fred Stone
> At some point in the past, Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
> slavered, and posted this:
>
>>"Doug Semler" <doug_...@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
>>message news:EZGdnSAkyfu...@wideopenwest.com...
>>
>>>At some point in the past, Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
>>>
>>>>What is "indigo" anyway? Something of a bluish violet, rather
>>>>than a reddish violet. Could you identify it if you saw it?
>>>
>>>I have no idea :)
>>
>>I got smart and look it up in an online dictionary:
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/
>>
>>It stated that Indigo was part of the spectrum ranging from 420
>>to 450 nanometers. Violet is shorter and ranges from 380-420
>>nanometers. This looked good until I looked up blue and
>>discovered that it ranged from 420 to 490 nanometers. Now I'm
>>confused again. And I cant find where purple fits in.
>>
>
>
> Violet is purple :)
>
> I looked around, and it seems no one can agree on the wavelengths and also
> whether indigo is an actual color lol.
You can't just go by wavelength. Yellow and brown are the same
wavelengths. Indigo is a dark blue. About the color of new, unwashed,
unfaded blue denim.
> Personally, I think indigo was added
> because Mr. BIV wanted his last name to contain a vowel, and Indigo was used
> because the color of the dye obtained from the Indigofera plants was in the
> ballpark...
>
--
Fred Stone
Conquering the Galaxy since 2003
Jonathan
> On 20 Aug 2003 16:07:25 -0700, frea...@yahoo.co.uk
> (frea...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
>
> >According to the story, Adam and Eve have two sons, one of which kills
> >the other. So there are three people, Adam, Eve, and Cain. The authors
> >then tell us that Cain "knew" his "wife." Where did SHE come from?
> >Let's ditch this trash and move on. - Bob.
>
THE BIBLE SAYS ADAM AND EVE HAD OTHER CHILDREN (AFTER)....THATS WHAT
YOU GET WHEN YOU DONT READ THE WHOLE STORY.
JONATHAN
David
> Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>> (frea...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
>>
>>> According to the story, Adam and Eve have two sons,
>>> one of which kills the other. So there are three
>>> people, Adam, Eve, and Cain. The authors then tell us
>>> that Cain "knew" his "wife." Where did SHE come from?
>>> Let's ditch this trash and move on. - Bob.
>>
> THE BIBLE SAYS ADAM AND EVE HAD OTHER CHILDREN
> (AFTER)....THATS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU DONT READ THE
> WHOLE STORY.
Oh, according to the christian mythology, Cain mated with
his sister? Does that mean we are all products of incest?
Mani Deli
wrote:
Hope you believe the story and that you are a dirty rotten sinner on
account of it.
Tired of Modern Art? See-
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Oh, according to the christian mythology, Cain mated with
>his sister? Does that mean we are all products of incest?
Probably. Its even more interesting to know that Jesus is the product
of adultery.
Libertarius
Jonathan wrote:
===>So, is THAT how they had more children?
By not reading the whole story?
Like a story about contraception?
David
> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, according to the christian mythology, Cain mated
>> with his sister? Does that mean we are all products of
>> incest?
>
> Probably. Its even more interesting to know that Jesus is
> the product of adultery.
At least Zeus came down and took care of business himself.
The christian god had to send a flunky to do it for him.
Weatherwax
"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vmgtr9h...@news.supernews.com...
I thought wavelength is what made the difference. I find yellow
listed as 570 to 590 nanometers, but I can't find the wavelength
for brown, but looking at a diagram, it should be somewhere
around 600 nanometers.
I can't accept a description of indigo being a dark blue, because
any color can be made darker merely be allowing less light. Or
lighter by allowing more light. It is not how much light is
reflected, but the wavelength of the light which is reflected
that is important.
> > Personally, I think indigo was added because Mr. BIV wanted
> > his last name to contain a vowel, and Indigo was used
> > because the color of the dye obtained from the Indigofera
> > plants was in the ballpark...
That could be true.
--
Wax
Doug Semler
slavered, and posted this:
> "Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
> news:vmgtr9h...@news.supernews.com...
>> Doug Semler wrote:
>>
>>> I looked around, and it seems no one can agree on the
>>> wavelengths and also whether indigo is an actual color lol.
>>
>> You can't just go by wavelength. Yellow and brown are the same
>> wavelengths. Indigo is a dark blue. About the color of new,
>> unwashed, unfaded blue denim.
>
> I thought wavelength is what made the difference. I find yellow
> listed as 570 to 590 nanometers, but I can't find the wavelength
> for brown, but looking at a diagram, it should be somewhere
> around 600 nanometers.
So did I... It's been so long since I've had to know anything about the
visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum that I just don't know
anymore...
And RE Yellow and Brown being the same, I agree and disagree. The reason I
do so is that generally speaking, the ROY G BV of the visible spectrum are
actually refering to RANGES of wavelength, while a color like Brown or Mauve
or Taupe actually take into account light intensity as well?
I'm just confusing myself more :)
>
> I can't accept a description of indigo being a dark blue, because
> any color can be made darker merely be allowing less light. Or
> lighter by allowing more light. It is not how much light is
> reflected, but the wavelength of the light which is reflected
> that is important.
>
>
>>> Personally, I think indigo was added because Mr. BIV wanted
>>> his last name to contain a vowel, and Indigo was used
>>> because the color of the dye obtained from the Indigofera
>>> plants was in the ballpark...
>
> That could be true.
Mr. BIV, of course, is not a member of the nonexistent EAC...
Joop
news:kJ9ab.143264$0v4.10...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
There is not always a single spectrum for a certain color. In additive
coloring you can add different spectra to get a new color. So there is no
single range. Only the colors of the rainbow have a single frequency, other
are mixed.
Substractive coloring is even messier as you take the whole spectrum and
take some lines out of it.
Joop
Weatherwax
> Mani Deli wrote:
> > David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, according to the christian mythology, Cain mated
> >> with his sister? Does that mean we are all products of
> >> incest?
> >
> > Probably. Its even more interesting to know that Jesus is
> > the product of adultery.
>
> At least Zeus came down and took care of business himself.
> The christian god had to send a flunky to do it for him.
But Zeus did disguise himself at times. With Europa his took the
image of a bull. With Leda, he took the image of a swan, which
made for one of the most beautiful poems in English literature:
Leda and the Swan
A sudden blow: the great wings beating still
Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed
By the dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,
He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.
How can those terrified vague fingers push
The feathered glory from her loosening thighs?
And how can body, laid in that white rush,
But feel the strange heart beating where it lies?
A shudder in the loins engenders there
The broken wall, the burning roof and tower
And Agamemnon dead.
Being so caught up,
So mastered by the brute blood of the air,
Did she put on his knowledge with his power
Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?
William Butler Yeats
--
Wax
Fred Stone
> At some point in the past, Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
> slavered, and posted this:
>
>>"Fred Stone" <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in message
>>news:vmgtr9h...@news.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Doug Semler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I looked around, and it seems no one can agree on the
>>>>wavelengths and also whether indigo is an actual color lol.
>>>
>>>You can't just go by wavelength. Yellow and brown are the same
>>>wavelengths. Indigo is a dark blue. About the color of new,
>>>unwashed, unfaded blue denim.
>>
>>I thought wavelength is what made the difference. I find yellow
>>listed as 570 to 590 nanometers, but I can't find the wavelength
>>for brown, but looking at a diagram, it should be somewhere
>>around 600 nanometers.
>
>
> So did I... It's been so long since I've had to know anything about the
> visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum that I just don't know
> anymore...
>
> And RE Yellow and Brown being the same, I agree and disagree. The reason I
> do so is that generally speaking, the ROY G BV of the visible spectrum are
> actually refering to RANGES of wavelength, while a color like Brown or Mauve
> or Taupe actually take into account light intensity as well?
>
> I'm just confusing myself more :)
>
You've got it right. Your vision works on color saturation and contrast
as well as individual wavelengths.
>
>>I can't accept a description of indigo being a dark blue, because
>>any color can be made darker merely be allowing less light. Or
>>lighter by allowing more light. It is not how much light is
>>reflected, but the wavelength of the light which is reflected
>>that is important.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Personally, I think indigo was added because Mr. BIV wanted
>>>>his last name to contain a vowel, and Indigo was used
>>>>because the color of the dye obtained from the Indigofera
>>>>plants was in the ballpark...
>>
>>That could be true.
>
>
> Mr. BIV, of course, is not a member of the nonexistent EAC...
>
>
--
Fred Stone
It's a question of contrast. Brown looks brown because it's darker than
it's surroundings. If you isolated a spot of brown color and manipulate
the brightness of the surround, you can make it appear yellow.
> I can't accept a description of indigo being a dark blue, because
> any color can be made darker merely be allowing less light.
Or by fading? Your vision works on saturation and contrast as well as
wavelength.
> Or
> lighter by allowing more light. It is not how much light is
> reflected, but the wavelength of the light which is reflected
> that is important.
And that's where you're wrong. Contrast is just as important as absolute
wavelength.
>
>
>
>>>Personally, I think indigo was added because Mr. BIV wanted
>>>his last name to contain a vowel, and Indigo was used
>>>because the color of the dye obtained from the Indigofera
>>>plants was in the ballpark...
>
>
> That could be true.
>
> --
> Wax
>
>
>
>
386sx
> Oh, according to the christian mythology, Cain mated with his sister?
> Does that mean we are all products of incest?
Technically, it means we are all the products of mating between brother
and sister. If you want to call that incest, well then you go right
ahead. You might upset some troll "pastros" around here though.
--
"He affirmed that only in man we had the beatings of the heart, that the
left side of the body was colder than the right, that men have more teeth
than women." -- John Tyndall
Mark Fox
> frea...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> >According to the story, Adam and Eve have two sons, one of which kills
> >the other. So there are three people, Adam, Eve, and Cain. The authors
> >then tell us that Cain "knew" his "wife." Where did SHE come from?
> >Let's ditch this trash and move on. - Bob.
>
> order to hear more flames and curses. I enjoy them. Its always
> amusing when a good ....
>
Perhaps the problem is that we expect the Bible to be something it is
not. The bible is clearly a profound document containing a message of
morality and wisdom for those who read it with an open heart.
Unfortunately, people have also attempted to use the Bible as a
geological history document and as a weapon to condemn (in some cases
even kill) their neighbors.
We misuse the ancient texts so badly that God himself came to Earth in
the form of a man to tell us personally of our error:
Matthew 22:36
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus
replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as
yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
commandments."
Of course in our human wisdom we did not follow God's words but
instead killed the messenger. How ironic to kill God in the name of
God. Could there possibly be a more poignant story of how self
serving we are? In can't think of one.
Gods response was: "forgive them for they know not what they do"
Even now, in the modern age, do we really listen to that story and the
wisdom it contains?
> Everyone should caste their vote for the stupidest Bible story.
>
> The story of Noah gets my vote, not only for its pervasive influence
> on creationist theory but because of its utter impossibility as truth.
The message I receive from reading about Noah is that if we listen to
God then we will be ready when the storms come.
I don't care how long is a Cubit or how deep the water became.
Weatherwax
"Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> Perhaps the problem is that we expect the Bible to be something
it
> is not. The bible is clearly a profound document containing a
> message of morality and wisdom for those who read it with an
> open heart.
>
> Unfortunately, people have also attempted to use the Bible as a
> geological history document and as a weapon to condemn (in
> some cases even kill) their neighbors.
All you are saying is that the Bible is what you read into it.
If you want profound messages of morality and wisdom, you can
find it. If you want ignorance and bigotry. That's in there
too.
The major problem is few people know which is which. The story
about Noah contains a great deal of ignorance, and the First
Commandment which forbids us to worship other gods is bigotry.
> We misuse the ancient texts so badly that God himself came to
> Earth in the form of a man to tell us personally of our error:
That is an example of misusing the Bible. Not only are you
giving too great of a literal interpretation to the text, but you
are interpolating the text to fit your theological viewpoint.
> Matthew 22:36
> "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus
> replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
all
> your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and
greatest
> commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as
> yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
> commandments."
In this case, the first is impossible without the second. You
cannot love God unless you love your neighbor as yourself. But
"Love your neighbor as yourself" is nearly impossible to achieve,
and is impractical.
It is much easiar to follow the Ten Commandments. Then you can
hate everybody who does not worship the same god you worship.
> Of course in our human wisdom we did not follow God's words but
> instead killed the messenger. How ironic to kill God in the
name of
> God. Could there possibly be a more poignant story of how self
> serving we are? In can't think of one.
>
> Gods response was: "forgive them for they know not what they
do"
>
> Even now, in the modern age, do we really listen to that story
> and the wisdom it contains?
>
>
< CLIP >
> The message I receive from reading about Noah is that if we
listen to
> God then we will be ready when the storms come.
>
> I don't care how long is a Cubit or how deep the water became.
The message I get from Noah, is that we can take two versions of
the same story and place them together so that they appear as one
story. Of course you get repetitions and a few contradictions,
but it can be done.
--
Wax
Mark Fox
Hi, Wax!
> It is much easiar to follow the Ten Commandments. Then you can
> hate everybody who does not worship the same god you worship.
>
Yes, I agree that its much easier to misinterpret the Ten Commandments
for our own convenience then it is to misinterpret Matthew 22.
Perhaps that's why public officials aren't clammering to put Matthew
22 on stone monuments in public places.
David
>
> Perhaps the problem is that we expect the Bible to be
> something it is not.
Yes! Far too many expect the bible to tell the truth and
they turn a blind eye when it doesn't.
David
> "David" <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote
>
>> Mani Deli wrote:
>>
>>> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Oh, according to the christian mythology, Cain
>>>> mated with his sister? Does that mean we are all
>>>> products of incest?
>>>
>>> Probably. Its even more interesting to know that
>>> Jesus is the product of adultery.
>>
>> At least Zeus came down and took care of business
>> himself. The christian god had to send a flunky to do
>> it for him.
>
> But Zeus did disguise himself at times. With Europa his
> took the image of a bull. With Leda, he took the image
> of a swan, which made for one of the most beautiful poems
> in English literature:
Nice poem. Zeus may have disguised himself, but he was man
enough to take care of things himself.
Mark Fox
> Mark Fox wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps the problem is that we expect the Bible to be
> > something it is not.
>
> Yes! Far too many expect the bible to tell the truth and
> they turn a blind eye when it doesn't.
How do we know when it doesn't??
Libertarius
Mark Fox wrote:
===>It does when it agrees with you. ;-)
Mark K. Bilbo
> The bible is clearly a profound document containing a message of morality
> and wisdom for those who read it with an open heart.
<snort> <snicker> <snirk>
--
Mark K. Bilbo
David
Start with the first line. It's a lie and it goes down hill
from there.
Bob Crowley
>
> And yet this god allows evil to exist. In fact this god that
> "cannot stand the presence of evil" created evil.
Evil exists, therefore if God exists, He must allow it to exist for a
reason, even if it pains Him to do so.
> > This judgement[sic], however, does not mean that God is not
> > loving or merciful.....
>
> Hmmm, a loving god that created evil.....
A big problem, one that no-one has been able to solve, but it
obviously belongs to the area of intelligence self will. Animals may
be brutal, even cruel at times, but in most cases it is their drive
for food that is behind it.
>
> > In the OT, God continually demonstrates His merciful
> > nature towards His people...
>
> This god had no mercy for anyone other than "his" people.
He gave the Assyrians a second chance at Johah's preaching, and they
were a cruel and brutal people. And as for His own people He was
oftne very hard on them.
>
> > Where did you dig up this junk about God not being
> > merciful in the OT?
>
> All you have to do is read the OT>
We tend to forget that by the time the prophets were doing their bit,
Israel had already had hundreds of years of grace to get its act
together.
> > Regarding knowing God's nature, everyone CAN know His
> > true nature....
>
> Since this god is a human invention, yes, anyone can know
> "his" true nature; just make it up like everyone else has.
What's your true nature?
>
> > Indeed, I used to be an atheist like many of you...
>
> Oh, too bad. You just lost any credibility you may have had
> with that lie. That they used to be an Atheist is the most
> common lie told by christians. Every last one of them will
> make that claim if you get them talking long enough.
>
Have you done a survey to prove this assertion. Time and again I hear
atheists claim the Christian is telling a lie, without proof and
without justification. As far as I am concerned it is the atheists who
are lying, or at least making an unjustified assumption. If, God
forbid, you ever become a Christian, you could make the claim quite
truthfully. Then if anyone said you were lying, you would know quite
well they were wrong.
> > Also, many of the stories of destruction and God's
> > wrath...
>
> I thought it was a merciful, loving, god? How could it have
> such wrath?
Paul wrote of God's great patience. In short people provoke HIm
greatly, but He is patient, hoping they'll change. Ever heard the
saying, "Beware the wrath of the patient man"?
>
> > This whole issue is a waste of your time, thought, and
> > life. Clearly God is merciful and loving throughout the
> > Bible. End of discussion, PERIOD.
>
> That's right. Your fantasy god is a waste of time.
If you feel so strongly about it, why are you wasting time on it
yourself?
Bob Crowley.
David
> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote
>> And yet this god allows evil to exist. In fact this god
>> that "cannot stand the presence of evil" created evil.
>
> Evil exists, therefore if God exists, He must allow it to
> exist for a reason, even if it pains Him to do so.
This god and evil do exist as human ideas. Neither exists in
reality. If your god "must allow it (evil) to exist" then
your god is not all powerful.
>>> This judgement[sic], however, does not mean that God
>>> is not loving or merciful.....
>>
>> Hmmm, a loving god that created evil.....
>
>
> A big problem, one that no-one has been able to solve...
It's been solved. An all loving, all powerful, god cannot
co-exist with evil. You have to take away the all loving, or
all powerful. Which one are you going to take away?
>>> In the OT, God continually demonstrates His merciful
>>> nature towards His people...
>>
>> This god had no mercy for anyone other than "his"
>> people.
>
> He gave the Assyrians a second chance at Johah's
> preaching....
One example doesn't negate the hundreds of examples of
genocide mentioned in the OT that were sanctioned by your god.
>>> Where did you dig up this junk about God not being
>>> merciful in the OT?
>>
>> All you have to do is read the OT.
>
> We tend to forget that by the time the prophets were
> doing their bit, Israel had already had hundreds of
> years of grace to get its act together.
That means the whole OT was written AFTER the fact and was
embellished by the writers.
>>> Regarding knowing God's nature, everyone CAN know His
>>> true nature....
>>
>> Since this god is a human invention, yes, anyone can
>> know "his" true nature; just make it up like everyone
>> else has.
>
> What's your true nature?
Irrelevant.
>>> Indeed, I used to be an atheist like many of you...
>>
>> Oh, too bad. You just lost any credibility you may have
>> had with that lie. That they used to be an Atheist is
>> the most common lie told by christians. Every last one
>> of them will make that claim if you get them talking
>> long enough.
>
> Have you done a survey to prove this assertion....
Yes. Almost 50 years of debating christians and most
Atheists that I've talked to will say the same thing.
>>> Also, many of the stories of destruction and God's
>>> wrath...
>>
>> I thought it was a merciful, loving, god? How could it
>> have such wrath?
>
> Paul wrote of God's great patience....
Paul made it all up, if there was a Paul that is (which is
highly doubtful according to biblical scholars). You can't
make any claims about what a god had to say until you prove
that god exists.
>>> This whole issue is a waste of your time, thought,
>>> and life. Clearly God is merciful and loving
>>> throughout the Bible. End of discussion, PERIOD.
>>
>> That's right. Your fantasy god is a waste of time.
>
> If you feel so strongly about it...
There are no "feelings" involved. I just go by the facts. So
far you have presented no facts about this god, just claims.
Thomas P.
Crowley) wrote:
>David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message news:<3f65...@news.sti.net>...
>>
>> And yet this god allows evil to exist. In fact this god that
>> "cannot stand the presence of evil" created evil.
>
>Evil exists, therefore if God exists, He must allow it to exist for a
>reason, even if it pains Him to do so.
>
>> > This judgement[sic], however, does not mean that God is not
>> > loving or merciful.....
>>
>> Hmmm, a loving god that created evil.....
>
>A big problem, one that no-one has been able to solve, but it
>obviously belongs to the area of intelligence self will. Animals may
>be brutal, even cruel at times, but in most cases it is their drive
>for food that is behind it.
The "Problem of evil" only exists if one assumes a good, omnipotent
god. It is quite clear that both cannot exist, and we know evil
exists. The solution is simple.
Thomas P.
Libertarius
Bob Crowley wrote:
> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message news:<3f65...@news.sti.net>...
> >
> > And yet this god allows evil to exist. In fact this god that
> > "cannot stand the presence of evil" created evil.
>
> Evil exists, therefore if God exists, He must allow it to exist for a
> reason, even if it pains Him to do so.
===>IF it really "pained him", he would ELIMINATE IT,
as he did all life in the flood when he was sorry he made man.
In fact he proudly declares:
"I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these [things]."
(Isaiah 45:7)
Mani Deli
<tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
>The "Problem of evil" only exists if one assumes a good, omnipotent
>god. It is quite clear that both cannot exist, and we know evil
>exists. The solution is simple.
>
Namely, your logic is rediculous.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:25:27 +0200, Thomas P.
><tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
>
>
>>The "Problem of evil" only exists if one assumes a good, omnipotent
>>god. It is quite clear that both cannot exist, and we know evil
>>exists. The solution is simple.
>>
>Namely, your logic is rediculous.
Why? He demonstrated two attributes claimed by believers which are
mutually impossible. It be either one of them but not both.
David
>>> god that "cannot stand the presence of evil" created
>>> evil.
>>
>> Evil exists, therefore if God exists, He must allow it
>> to exist for a reason, even if it pains Him to do so.
>>
>>>> This judgement[sic], however, does not mean that
>>>> God is not loving or merciful.....
>>>
>>> Hmmm, a loving god that created evil.....
>>
>> A big problem, one that no-one has been able to solve,
>> but it obviously belongs to the area of intelligence
>> self will. Animals may be brutal, even cruel at times,
>> but in most cases it is their drive for food that is
>> behind it.
>
> The "Problem of evil" only exists if one assumes a good,
> omnipotent god. It is quite clear that both cannot
> exist, and we know evil exists. The solution is simple.
Yes, the solution is quite simple; the god the christians
prattle on about is either not all loving or not all
powerful. It's their god, so I'll let them pick which
attribute they wish to change.
Al Klein
>David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message news:<3f65...@news.sti.net>...
>> And yet this god allows evil to exist. In fact this god that
>> "cannot stand the presence of evil" created evil.
>Evil exists, therefore if God exists, He must allow it to exist for a
>reason, even if it pains Him to do so.
If he "must" do something (is forced to) then he's not omnipotent, so
you're not talking about the Christian god.
>> > This judgement[sic], however, does not mean that God is not
>> > loving or merciful.....
>> Hmmm, a loving god that created evil.....
>A big problem, one that no-one has been able to solve, but it
>obviously belongs to the area of intelligence self will.
If your god had self-will he could have created a universe without
evil. So, yes, your god sounds like a creature without self-will.
>> > In the OT, God continually demonstrates His merciful
>> > nature towards His people...
>> This god had no mercy for anyone other than "his" people.
>He gave the Assyrians a second chance at Johah's preaching, and they
>were a cruel and brutal people. And as for His own people He was
>oftne very hard on them.
Where is the mercy in killing almost every living thing on this
planet?
>> > Where did you dig up this junk about God not being
>> > merciful in the OT?
>> All you have to do is read the OT>
>We tend to forget that by the time the prophets were doing their bit,
>Israel had already had hundreds of years of grace to get its act
>together.
Read the OT. Noah's flood. Were all the unborn babies your god
killed deserving of death? All the animals? All the plants?
>> > Indeed, I used to be an atheist like many of you...
>> Oh, too bad. You just lost any credibility you may have had
>> with that lie. That they used to be an Atheist is the most
>> common lie told by christians. Every last one of them will
>> make that claim if you get them talking long enough.
>Have you done a survey to prove this assertion.
Yes. Not one Christian posting here who claimed to have been an
atheist understood atheism.
>If, God
>forbid, you ever become a Christian, you could make the claim quite
>truthfully.
Why would anyone who had escaped slavery want to become a slave again?
>> > Also, many of the stories of destruction and God's
>> > wrath...
>> I thought it was a merciful, loving, god? How could it have
>> such wrath?
>Paul wrote of God's great patience. In short people provoke HIm
>greatly
An infinitely knowing god can't be "provoked". He already knows
what's going to be done.
> but He is patient, hoping they'll change.
An omniscient god "hoping"? Are you TRYING to sound ridiculous?
> Ever heard the saying, "Beware the wrath of the patient man"?
An omniscient god can't be "patient". Especially if he's atemporal,
which the Christian god is.
>> > This whole issue is a waste of your time, thought, and
>> > life. Clearly God is merciful and loving throughout the
>> > Bible. End of discussion, PERIOD.
>> That's right. Your fantasy god is a waste of time.
>If you feel so strongly about it, why are you wasting time on it
>yourself?
You're posting your crap to alt.atheism.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:25:27 +0200, Thomas P.
><tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
>>The "Problem of evil" only exists if one assumes a good, omnipotent
>>god. It is quite clear that both cannot exist, and we know evil
>>exists. The solution is simple.
>Namely, your logic is rediculous.
An omnipotent god COULD eliminate evil. An omnibenevolent god WOULD
eliminate evil.
Evil exists.
Now, what was the logical error again?
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
Thomas P.
>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:25:27 +0200, Thomas P.
><tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
>
>
>>The "Problem of evil" only exists if one assumes a good, omnipotent
>>god. It is quite clear that both cannot exist, and we know evil
>>exists. The solution is simple.
>>
>Namely, your logic is rediculous.
After reading your brilliant refutation I am totally convinced.
Thomas P.
Thomas P.
wrote:
Non-existent is the most reasonable solution.
Thomas P.
David K. Lewis
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:04:37 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:25:27 +0200, Thomas P.
> ><tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
>
> >>The "Problem of evil" only exists if one assumes a good, omnipotent
> >>god. It is quite clear that both cannot exist, and we know evil
> >>exists. The solution is simple.
>
> >Namely, your logic is rediculous.
>
> An omnipotent god COULD eliminate evil. An omnibenevolent god WOULD
> eliminate evil.
>
> Evil exists.
>
> Now, what was the logical error again?
Hmm, if I had to guess it would be with the statement:
"Evil exists"
It all depends on what you mean by evil. Perhaps you aren't
seeing the full scale/range to make your decision. I mean we
know suffering, disease, famine, and people doing bad things to
others exist, but what if the worst thing you can think of
is still in the upper 10% of the range and thus considered
good by someone who could see the entire scale?
I'm not saying it is, but what if you aren't able to see or
know of the worse 90% of things out there because someone
or something eliminated it from being possible?
That's the only error I can see, perhaps what you call Evil
isn't because you don't know what real evil is?
I can't imaging these things being good, but if there's more
to the scale, and I saw the whole range, perhaps I might...
As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
tsawlrite
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3F6E06EC.9152E19C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
the bible anymore. If God eliminated evil, He would also have to take away
our free will. We've had free will since the beginning. Gen 2:16 "And the
LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest
freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die." Evil is the result of humans having free will, God gave us free will,
thus God created evil. If you don't mind having your free will taken away,
then sure, eliminate evil. Evil is the result of people's poor judgements,
reasoning, decisions, etc.||||||||||tsawlrite
David
Have you ever seen a christian come up with anything
reasonable? :-)
Robibnikoff
Goodness, no. In the middle of a religious email dispute with one of my SILs,
she barked "My God is a GOOD God!". I restrained myself from typing back, "Oh,
you mean the god that gave your daughter a major heart condition, thus requiring
a transplant in the future on top of the three major surgeries she's already
endured?"
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Thomas P.
wrote:
>
>"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
>news:3F6E06EC.9152E19C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
>>
>>
>> Bob Crowley wrote:
snip
>> ===>IF it really "pained him", he would ELIMINATE IT,
>> as he did all life in the flood when he was sorry he made man.
>> In fact he proudly declares:
>> "I form the light, and create darkness:
>> I make peace, and create evil:
>> I the LORD do all these [things]."
>> (Isaiah 45:7)
>>
>>
>||||||||||||| Thanks for quoting a scripture. I didn't think people read
>the bible anymore. If God eliminated evil, He would also have to take away
>our free will.
That is not true. He could easily make only those people who he knew
would freely choose to do good. Besides free will only brings up
another contradiction, the existence of an omnipotent god and beings
with free will.
We've had free will since the beginning. Gen 2:16 "And the
>LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest
>freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
>not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
>die." Evil is the result of humans having free will, God gave us free will,
>thus God created evil. If you don't mind having your free will taken away,
>then sure, eliminate evil. Evil is the result of people's poor judgements,
>reasoning, decisions, etc.||||||||||tsawlrite
Then god should have made smarter people who would freely make the
right decisions. Of course the omnipotence/free will contradiction
remains.
Thomas P.
Doug Semler
and posted this:
I disagree. Why can't you have free will if evil is precluded from human
nature? All the removal of evil from human nature implies is that the
choice set for our free will is limited. It doesn't mean that free will
itself would no longer exist. Considering the fact that humans already have
limited free will, and not total free will, it is not too difficult to see
the conclusion that further limitations are possible, especially to an
all-powerful god. The removal of the concept of evil in the choice set
would actually be a better indication of an all-loving supreme being than
the fact that evil choices do exist.
--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
42
DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 09/18/2003
Libertarius
tsawlrite wrote:
> "Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
> news:3F6E06EC.9152E19C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
> >
> >
> > Bob Crowley wrote:
> >
> > > David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote in message
> news:<3f65...@news.sti.net>...
> > > >
> > > > And yet this god allows evil to exist. In fact this god that
> > > > "cannot stand the presence of evil" created evil.
> > >
> > > Evil exists, therefore if God exists, He must allow it to exist for a
> > > reason, even if it pains Him to do so.
> >
> > ===>IF it really "pained him", he would ELIMINATE IT,
> > as he did all life in the flood when he was sorry he made man.
> > In fact he proudly declares:
> > "I form the light, and create darkness:
> > I make peace, and create evil:
> > I the LORD do all these [things]."
> > (Isaiah 45:7)
> >
> >
> ||||||||||||| Thanks for quoting a scripture. I didn't think people read
> the bible anymore. If God eliminated evil, He would also have to take away
> our free will.
===>That is STUPID!
Why would he be "taking away" ANYTHING by not creating evil?
> We've had free will since the beginning. Gen 2:16 "And the
> LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest
> freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
> not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
> die."
===>How in the world can you squeeze any idea of a "free will" out of that?
Coming from an omniscient being that is pure DECEPTION.
He already knew quite well that the man WOULD eat of that tree
even before he created the poor fellow.
Your belief in your stories lets you down every time.
> Evil is the result of humans having free will,
===>What on earth does THAT mean?
> God gave us free will,
> thus God created evil.
===>Free will would imply being LEFT ALONE, regardless
of the choice made.
But the man had no choice of doing something other than what
"GOD" already KNEW long before he created the poor guy!
And as soon as he made his choice, YHWH screamed WRONG!
and evicted him out of his garden
> If you don't mind having your free will taken away,
> then sure, eliminate evil. Evil is the result of people's poor judgements,
> reasoning, decisions, etc.
===>What do you call "evil"???
Obviously not poverty and natural disasters, diseases and death. -- L.
Thomas P.
wrote:
Ah, God works in mysterious ways!
Thomas P.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> writes:
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:04:37 -0400, Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>
>> posted in alt.atheism:
>> >On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:25:27 +0200, Thomas P.
>> ><tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
>> >>The "Problem of evil" only exists if one assumes a good, omnipotent
>> >>god. It is quite clear that both cannot exist, and we know evil
>> >>exists. The solution is simple.
>> >Namely, your logic is rediculous.
>> An omnipotent god COULD eliminate evil. An omnibenevolent god WOULD
>> eliminate evil.
>> Evil exists.
>> Now, what was the logical error again?
>Hmm, if I had to guess it would be with the statement:
> "Evil exists"
>It all depends on what you mean by evil.
Ask a Christian. The same ones who claim an omnipotent omnibenevolent
god exists also claim that evil exists.
I'm not addressing reality here - only Christian claims.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
Robibnikoff
>>
>>Goodness, no. In the middle of a religious email dispute with one of my SILs,
>>she barked "My God is a GOOD God!". I restrained myself from typing back, "Oh,
>>you mean the god that gave your daughter a major heart condition, thus requiring
>>a transplant in the future on top of the three major surgeries she's already
>>endured?"
>
>Ah, God works in mysterious ways!
LOL, so it would seem ;)
At least I finally got myself off my SILs address list and won't be getting any
further religious emails ;)
tsawlrite
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
What is your definition of evil? Poverty can be evil, it depends on if
someone made someone else poor intentionally. Death is not evil, unless you
purposely kill someone. You are right, God does know everything. Adam had
choices, he could eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, he could
eat from the other trees, or he could eat nothing at all. By removing the
option to sin, He would have effectively reduced Adam's choices to only one.
Choosing to eat from the center tree would be sinful, and choosing to starve
to death would be sinful, thus Adam could only do one thing. If you could
not choose to sin, you wouldn't have choices. Free will is the source of
evil by definition. I don't have a current dictionary on me, but look the
word up yourself. A house can't be evil because it has no free will. The
same is with wind, ground, death, etc. If there is an earthquake, the earth
is not "out to get" you. Your idea of evil is
distorted.|||||||||||||tsawlrite
Thomas P.
wrote:
Reminds me of Joel Chandler Harris:
"Oh please don't throw me in the briar patch!"
Thomas P.
Robibnikoff
<chuckle> Well, my husband's still on the list and forwarded a particularly
nauseating one he'd received this morning with the notation "Probably just an
oversight that you were left off of this one…" He's such a comedian ;)
David
> You are right, natural disasters and diseases are not evil.
> What is your definition of evil?
Hamlet Lecture III, Part III
... There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes
it so....
Libertarius
tsawlrite wrote:
===>Only ONE?
How can you say that after writing:
"Adam had
choices, he could eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, he could
eat from the other trees, or he could eat nothing at all."
Taking ONE TREE out of the "middle of the garden" would NOT
have "reduced his choices to "only one".
> Choosing to eat from the center tree would be sinful, and choosing to starve
> to death would be sinful,
===>WHY?
Why would eating from the center tree be a "sin"???
Did YHWH prefer them to remain ignorant, like YOU appear to
wish to be?
And even more so, why would a choice of NOT eating from ANY
tree be a "sin"???
> thus Adam could only do one thing.
===>NONSENSE.
False conclusion from false premises.
> If you could
> not choose to sin, you wouldn't have choices.
===>Adam had NO CHOICE but to do what "GOD"
KNEW IN ADVANCE he would do.
He was created with the deliberate KNOWLEDGE that
"GOD" was making a creature who would, as you call it, "sin".
> Free will is the source of
> evil by definition.
===>More nonsense.
But if THAT is your definition, so be it.
> I don't have a current dictionary on me,
===>Silly excuse!
You ARE on the Internet, are you not?
You could EASILY look up an online dictionary.
As you said, you appear to PREFER to be ignorant.
> but look the
> word up yourself.
===>Why should I?
I know what "free will" is, as well as what "evil" means.
It is YOU who prefer to use the Humpty Dumpty
Princiople.
> A house can't be evil because it has no free will. The
> same is with wind, ground, death, etc.
===>All this is based on your Humpty Dumpty
"definition", which I consider false.
> If there is an earthquake, the earth
> is not "out to get" you.
===>So, you think earthquakes and hundreds of
people dying are good?
> Your idea of evil is
> distorted.|||||||||||||tsawlrite
===>For sure it is not YOUR silly idea.
Perhaps it is not too late for you to learn something, so
here is the DICTIONARY definition of "EVIL":
1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing
b : a cosmic evil force
2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Libertarius
============
Thomas P.
wrote:
>
>"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
>news:3F6F69AA.B592DAC@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
snip
>>
>||||||||||||||You are right, natural disasters and diseases are not evil.
>What is your definition of evil? Poverty can be evil, it depends on if
>someone made someone else poor intentionally. Death is not evil, unless you
>purposely kill someone. You are right, God does know everything. Adam had
>choices, he could eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, he could
>eat from the other trees, or he could eat nothing at all. By removing the
>option to sin, He would have effectively reduced Adam's choices to only one.
It was not necessary to remove the option to sin. He could have just
made Adam smarter so that he would have freely made the right choice.
There are at least two problems with the story. First of all Adam was
completely innocent and understood nothing about right or wrong. He
could no more sin than a baby. The other problem is that god set him
up by delibrately putting him into a situation he knew would result in
Adam breaking his rule. All of that, of course, ignores the total
impossibility of an omnipotent god and free will existing at the same
time.
Thomas P.
Libertarius
"Thomas P." wrote:
===>Well, it says that after a while he was
"SORRY HE MADE MAN"!
Thomas P.
I am willing to forgive him if he pays reasonable compensation to all
of us. Since he has infinite assets, each of us should be able to
decide what reasonable compensation would be.
Thomas P.
John Ritson
writes
The incomprehensibility defence to the 'problem of evil' may save the
reputation of the deity, but the collateral damage is that it destroys
any concept of religious worship or religion-based ethics.
If one cannot know what one's deity 'really' requires in the greater
scheme of things then how do you know that it desires to be worshipped
and if so, how?
Why not slaughter the next people you meet? Perhaps killing them would
result in a net decrease in evil? After all, the Old Testament God
allegedly wiped out almost the entire population of the planet.
If faced with a choice between worshipping an 'evil' god and accepting a
'perfect' deity whose needs cannot be known, I suspect I know what most
believers will choose.
--
John Ritson
Weatherwax
"tsawlrite" <tsaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
< CLIP >
> If God eliminated evil, He would also have to take away
> our free will.
So God can't eliminate evil without taking away free will.
It is interesting to see a Christian admit that there is
something the omnipotent deity cannot do.
--
Wax
Mark Fox
> >
> > The "Problem of evil" only exists if one assumes a good,
> > omnipotent god. It is quite clear that both cannot
> > exist, and we know evil exists. The solution is simple.
>
> Yes, the solution is quite simple; the god the christians
> prattle on about is either not all loving or not all
> powerful. It's their god, so I'll let them pick which
> attribute they wish to change.
I wonder if its the same logic that little children would employ when
trying to rationalize why they should be allowed by their parents to
play ball in a street filled with heavy traffic.
If you don't let me play ball where I want you must be "not all
loving"
and if choose not to take away the traffic danger you must be "not all
powerful"
Doug Semler
slavered, and posted this:
One minor problem: you are equating ability with desire, which you really
shouldn't do. However, it is MORE interesting to note that Christians seem
to know the desires of the supreme being.
Question for discussion: does the fact that the deity has desires negate the
deity's given quality of omniscience?
Therion Ware
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 02:56:56 -0400 in alt.atheism, Doug Semler ("Doug
Semler" <doug_...@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
>At some point in the past, Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
>slavered, and posted this:
>> "tsawlrite" <tsaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> < CLIP >
>>
>>> If God eliminated evil, He would also have to take away
>>> our free will.
>>
>> So God can't eliminate evil without taking away free will.
>>
>> It is interesting to see a Christian admit that there is
>> something the omnipotent deity cannot do.
>
>One minor problem: you are equating ability with desire, which you really
>shouldn't do. However, it is MORE interesting to note that Christians seem
>to know the desires of the supreme being.
>
>Question for discussion: does the fact that the deity has desires negate the
>deity's given quality of omniscience?
I don't know about omniscience alone (this just implies you know what
you want, not that you can necessarily get it!), but it's certainly
difficult to see how an omniscient and omnipotent entity can have any
unfulfilled desires, at least not without limiting itself in some way;
kind of a supernatural version of "I could eat that chocolate if I
wanted to, but I shall restrain myself". Which some to think of it is
probably about as close to a miracle as it gets!
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 **
Weatherwax
"Doug Semler" wrote
> Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
> > "tsawlrite" <tsaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > < CLIP >
> >
> >> If God eliminated evil, He would also have to take away
> >> our free will.
> >
> > So God can't eliminate evil without taking away free will.
> >
> > It is interesting to see a Christian admit that there is
> > something the omnipotent deity cannot do.
>
> One minor problem: you are equating ability with desire,
> which you really shouldn't do. However, it is MORE
> interesting to note that Christians seem to know the desires
> of the supreme being.
Excuse me, but tsawlrite said that God can't eliminate evil. Are
you now saying that God can eliminate evil, but he has no desire
to?
> Question for discussion: does the fact that the deity has
> desires negate the deity's given quality of omniscience?
The Christian argument is that we are too small to understand
God's actions. Actually, if we assume that God is malevolent,
his actions become easy to explain.
--
Wax
David K. Lewis
> At some point in the past, Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
> slavered, and posted this:
> > "tsawlrite" <tsaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > < CLIP >
> >
> >> If God eliminated evil, He would also have to take away
> >> our free will.
> >
> > So God can't eliminate evil without taking away free will.
> >
> > It is interesting to see a Christian admit that there is
> > something the omnipotent deity cannot do.
>
> One minor problem: you are equating ability with desire, which you really
> shouldn't do.
Actually he's not, did you even read what he responded to?
The poster claimed that god would be unable to create a
universe without evil and still maintain free will.
So he would be unable to create the condition A and !B,
note, unable and not unwilling....
The poster didn't say unwilling because then they'd have
to explain or rationalize to themselves *why* it was
created with evil (as that would go against their sense
of a good/benevolent god, they choose to believe unable).
As always any opinions I may have created above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
David
> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote
>
>>> The "Problem of evil" only exists if one assumes a
>>> good, omnipotent god. It is quite clear that both
>>> cannot exist, and we know evil exists. The solution
>>> is simple.
>>
>> Yes, the solution is quite simple; the god the
>> christians prattle on about is either not all loving or
>> not all powerful. It's their god, so I'll let them pick
>> which attribute they wish to change.
>
> I wonder if its the same logic that little children would
> employ when trying to rationalize why they should be
> allowed by their parents to play ball in a street filled
> with heavy traffic.
No.
JoeCool
created evil.
Would you refuse to have a child because he will grow up with the
ability to make evil choices?
If you could would you remove the ability of your child to choose
between good and evil?
I do my best to teach my child to make the right decisions, but I
still want him to be able to choose. Just as the God I worship has
given us instruction in right and wrong and wants us to choose. The
good is in the choice of one way over another.
Many of the postings assume that all Christians are bible literalist,
which many of us are not. The bible is an attempt of man to teach
God's word, and is as imperfect as man himself. Is it useless? To me
no, it is full of teachings that benifit all of mankind. Worship your
God with all of your heart, your soul, and YOUR MIND.
Peace,
Joe
Doug Semler
>> Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
>>> "tsawlrite" <tsaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> < CLIP >
>>>
>>>> If God eliminated evil, He would also have to take away
>>>> our free will.
>>>
>>> So God can't eliminate evil without taking away free will.
>>>
>>> It is interesting to see a Christian admit that there is
>>> something the omnipotent deity cannot do.
>>
>> One minor problem: you are equating ability with desire,
>> which you really shouldn't do. However, it is MORE
>> interesting to note that Christians seem to know the desires
>> of the supreme being.
>
> Excuse me, but tsawlrite said that God can't eliminate evil. Are
> you now saying that God can eliminate evil, but he has no desire
> to?
I did not read the original post so I do not know what was previously
written. However, the statement to which you responded said, "If God
eliminated evil, He would also have to take away our free will." (Which does
not even address the fact that an omniscient being negates free will to
begin with, but that's beside this point.) My point is that the way you
read it is that the deity does not have the ability to remove evil. I read
it differently, in that the deity has the ability remove evil, however that
removal has an undesired side effect *to him*. Do you see the difference?
By the way, I am not thiest, I just wanted to point out that you fall into a
common trap when it comes to this point. Which is why I raised the question
on a being's omnipotence and its desires.
Doug Semler
posted this:
> "Doug Semler" <doug_...@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> writes:
>> At some point in the past, Weatherwax <weath...@worldnet.net>
>> slavered, and posted this:
>>> "tsawlrite" <tsaw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> < CLIP >
>>>
>>>> If God eliminated evil, He would also have to take away
>>>> our free will.
>>>
>>> So God can't eliminate evil without taking away free will.
>>>
>>> It is interesting to see a Christian admit that there is
>>> something the omnipotent deity cannot do.
>>
>> One minor problem: you are equating ability with desire, which you
>> really shouldn't do.
>
> Actually he's not, did you even read what he responded to?
No, I didn't. So what? The quote attribution given did not state that. If
the attributions were correct, I wouldn't have to go back and read the
entire post. Especially since I am coming from a newsgroup which posts 1500
messages per day. You cannot expect me to remember everything everyone has
posted, nor read every single line of every post to which people are
responding. That is the whole point of quoting!
>
> The poster claimed that god would be unable to create a
> universe without evil and still maintain free will.
> So he would be unable to create the condition A and !B,
> note, unable and not unwilling....
To begin with, you should point out that the original poster's premise is
incorrect, because one can show that the removal of evil does not remove
free will; it only introduces a limitation on the choice set given to the
beings with free will. Since we (assuming we are beings with free will) are
already operating under a limited choice set, the removal of one choice set
does not completely negate the property of free will, it only introduces
further limitations.
>
> The poster didn't say unwilling because then they'd have
> to explain or rationalize to themselves *why* it was
> created with evil (as that would go against their sense
> of a good/benevolent god, they choose to believe unable).
>
Yes. Which is why Rational Christian is an oxymoron.
Libertarius
===>Mormon's have an idea:
How'bout a planet of our own
to do with it as we please?
Libertarius
>
> Evil is a human failing. Yes God created us so you can argue God
> created evil.
> Would you refuse to have a child because he will grow up with the
> ability to make evil choices?
===>Would you PRODUCE a child if you knew he would be a serial killer
and end up in the electric chair? -- L.
Weatherwax
"Doug Semler" <doug_...@REMOVEMEwideopenwest.com> wrote in
message news:h5Cdnc6yBve...@wideopenwest.com...
I do not believe that I read tsawlrite statement incorrectly. It
is the standard Christian argument. He said, "If God eliminated
evil, He would also have to take away our free will." I did not
interpret that to mean God could not take away evil, but that he
had only an either/or chioce. That is he could not both
eliminate evil and leave free will. He must either permit evil,
or remove free will. This implies a limitation in what is
supposed to be an omnipotent being.
The problem comes down to whether omnipotence implies the ability
to do the logically impossible. Theologians, being aware of the
implication concerning evil, claim only that God can do what is
not logically impossible. However, laymen are reluctant to
admit that there is anything God cannot do, including the
logically impossible.
--
Wax
David
> Evil is a human failing. Yes God created us so you can
> argue God created evil.
Man created god in his image.
Thomas P.
>Evil is a human failing. Yes God created us so you can argue God
>created evil.
>Would you refuse to have a child because he will grow up with the
>ability to make evil choices?
Would you create a child who you knew would grow up to do great evil?
>If you could would you remove the ability of your child to choose
>between good and evil?
Why not remove evil itself and allow the child to choose between an
infinity of good things?
>I do my best to teach my child to make the right decisions, but I
>still want him to be able to choose. Just as the God I worship has
>given us instruction in right and wrong and wants us to choose. The
>good is in the choice of one way over another.
Do you leave dangerous items around the house for your child to choose
to play with or to leave alone? Would you make dangerous items if you
did not have to?
>Many of the postings assume that all Christians are bible literalist,
>which many of us are not. The bible is an attempt of man to teach
>God's word, and is as imperfect as man himself. Is it useless? To me
>no, it is full of teachings that benifit all of mankind. Worship your
>God with all of your heart, your soul, and YOUR MIND.
What god?
Thomas P.
Thomas P.
Maybe as a vacation home - certainly not the entire settlement though.
Thomas P.
Bob Crowley
This assumes predestination, in that the adult knows without fail that
the child will become a serial killer, and will have no other choice
but to end up in the electric chair.
Therefore Libertarius is agreeing that he is predestined to be an
atheist, and had no choice in the matter. If a child is predestined
to become a serial killer, then he is also predestined in everything
else. If this is the case, then why is Libertarius arguing his case
on the net?
The point is of course that God (and his human parents) gave the child
the free will to decided whether to be a serial killer or not.
Do you have free will or not, Libertarius? If you say "yes", then
your argument is invalid. If you say "no" then you are agreeing that
there is an inescapable plan behind each and every human.
What is your choice?
Bob Crowley.