What are the possibilities?
Michael Christ
3 cores (active, negative, and earth) made up of multiple strands in each
core, each one encased separately in plastic. The 3 cores were then encased
in another even thicker white plastic.
I threw it on the ground in the dirt.
Now what are the chances of that evolving from the dirt?
How much more is man than the ability to make electrical wire, and how much
more is God than His ability to make man?
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
>Yesterday I happened to be holding a piece of house electrical wire. It has
>3 cores (active, negative, and earth) made up of multiple strands in each
>core, each one encased separately in plastic. The 3 cores were then encased
>in another even thicker white plastic.
>
>I threw it on the ground in the dirt.
>
>Now what are the chances of that evolving from the dirt?
Far better than a magical creator being always existing.
>How much more is man than the ability to make electrical wire, and how much
>more is God than His ability to make man?
Man has the power to create God but God is powerless.
What are you that you think God needs your help?
>Michael Christ
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Zadok
But extending that further, How much more is Sophia (Wisdom)
who gave birth to your God!!
Smile.
Superman
> Yesterday I happened to be holding a piece of house electrical wire.
> It has
> 3 cores (active, negative, and earth) made up of multiple strands in each
> core, each one encased separately in plastic. The 3 cores were then
> encased
> in another even thicker white plastic.
>
> I threw it on the ground in the dirt.
>
> Now what are the chances of that evolving from the dirt?
Nil. Electrical wire is a manufactured product. But is this is supposed
to be some sort of argument against human existence being possible
except by creation by a divine being, then it fails miserably.
>
> How much more is man than the ability to make electrical wire, and how
> much more is God than His ability to make man?
>
>
> Michael Christ
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com
"We stopped the boats coming. The facts speak for themselves. People knew where we stood. We didn't try to be all things to all men. Look, our policy worked. There was no need to alter it" - John Howard
"Our journalists are finally noticing the elephant in the room. Rudd has given us grocery watch, fuel watch, a national dept our children will still be paying, an ETS scheme that will further bankrupt the nation without making an iota of difference to global warming. Rudd is all spin and no substance. Even worse, he expects to fool all people all the time." - media comment
"I don't care what you f__kers think!" - The Hon Kevin Rudd MP, Prime Minister of Australia
Bob Young
On 12/30/09 7:05 PM, in article
%tG_m.65720$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Michael Christ"
<jesus...@father.com> wrote:
Except man evolved he was not made, otherwise he would not suffer from a
good many diseases that also effect dogs, cats and mice. Man would also
have arrived speaking the same language all over the planet, a language that
remains unchanged for millions of years, a language that the god taught
them, not one of the thousands of languages that man has developed and
improved through each passing year.
If a god made man why does 'He' allow those grossly deformed fetus to arrive
that are so gross the parents are not even allowed to se it [one in roughly
400,000 births]
I do not really expect a full fronted and concise answer to the above
questions, by the way, I expect more of the usual diversions.
I wonder why ?
>
>
>
>
> Michael Christ
>
randy
"Bob Young"
>> How much more is man than the ability to make electrical wire, and how
>> much
>> more is God than His ability to make man?
> Except man evolved he was not made, otherwise he would not suffer from a
> good many diseases that also effect dogs, cats and mice. Man would also
> have arrived speaking the same language all over the planet, a language
> that
> remains unchanged for millions of years, a language that the god taught
> them, not one of the thousands of languages that man has developed and
> improved through each passing year.
It's funny that whether you call it science or creation, you end up with
roughly the same thing. It boils down really to an argument over whether
there has been divine design. You argue that the design is negative, and
reflects mistakes, cruelty, and things that do not characterize the concept
of a loving God. We creationists would argue that despite the negative
effects overall the existence of man and his environment reflects a good
purpose, allowing freewill, and consequences for good and bad behavior.
You might as well say that God took a handful from man's rib and created a
female, and that God took a handful from animal DNA and created man, or that
God took a handful from the earth and made both man and animals. How is that
different from scientists discovering the process of evolution, that there
are common DNA features in both man and animals, and that there are common
features in the earth that characterize man and animals? We are really only
arguing over whether the process of human and animal development has an
intelligent purpose, aren't we?
> If a god made man why does 'He' allow those grossly deformed fetus to
> arrive
> that are so gross the parents are not even allowed to se it [one in
> roughly
> 400,000 births]
Everything in this life can be "redeemed" by recreation, or by resurrection
to an immortal body. What we have now are the effects resulting from human
freewill gone haywire. We have chosen to live in an environment that is
freer from God's original blueprint, and the negative effects are chilling.
randy
Superman
No, we are arguing about fact and truth. Either it's true that man was
created by God or it is not.
>
>> If a god made man why does 'He' allow those grossly deformed fetus to
>> arrive
>> that are so gross the parents are not even allowed to se it [one in
>> roughly
>> 400,000 births]
>
> Everything in this life can be "redeemed" by recreation, or by
> resurrection to an immortal body. What we have now are the effects
> resulting from human freewill gone haywire. We have chosen to live in
> an environment that is freer from God's original blueprint, and the
> negative effects are chilling.
People have not chosen to be born with horrible defects condemning them
to a life of suffering, I'm sure. Fortunately modern medical science was
able to rectify God's 'mistake' on this occasion..
http://tinyurl.com/cojoined-twins.
> randy
Bob Young
On 12/30/09 7:55 PM, in article iofmj5pm2helsln8s...@4ax.com,
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:05:31 GMT, "Michael Christ" <jesus...@father.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yesterday I happened to be holding a piece of house electrical wire. It has
>> 3 cores (active, negative, and earth) made up of multiple strands in each
>> core, each one encased separately in plastic. The 3 cores were then encased
>> in another even thicker white plastic.
>>
>> I threw it on the ground in the dirt.
>>
>> Now what are the chances of that evolving from the dirt?
>
> Far better than a magical creator being always existing.
>
>> How much more is man than the ability to make electrical wire, and how much
>> more is God than His ability to make man?
>
> Man has the power to create God but God is powerless.
Everything outside of nature that we see on this planet was created by man,
along with all of his gods - thousands of them over time.
Nature [evolution] is rife with screw ups due to the random effects of
development over billions of years. The giraffe finished up having to cope
with a long freak neck and all the hazards that comes with it - we humans
have to cope with a freak brain inherited from evolution.
That brain will, sad to say, eventually be the end of us all.
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N � it is all in the mind,
an escape from life�s realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of man�s
ills. But I have the common sense and intelligence to realize, this is
simply the way that man desires things to be.
Michael Christ
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:lKmdnTwbALxOs6PW...@wavecable.com...
You are wasting your intelligence on them.
Their mind is closed and they have decided to glory in themselves.
They would be drowning in a swimming pool and they still wouldn't admit they
were wet.
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
>"Bob Young"
>>> How much more is man than the ability to make electrical wire, and how
>>> much
>>> more is God than His ability to make man?
>
>> Except man evolved he was not made, otherwise he would not suffer from a
>> good many diseases that also effect dogs, cats and mice. Man would also
>> have arrived speaking the same language all over the planet, a language
>> that
>> remains unchanged for millions of years, a language that the god taught
>> them, not one of the thousands of languages that man has developed and
>> improved through each passing year.
>
>It's funny that whether you call it science or creation, you end up with
>roughly the same thing. It boils down really to an argument over whether
>there has been divine design. You argue that the design is negative, and
>reflects mistakes, cruelty, and things that do not characterize the concept
>of a loving God. We creationists would argue that despite the negative
>effects overall the existence of man and his environment reflects a good
>purpose, allowing freewill, and consequences for good and bad behavior.
You are programmed to lick God's boots but in reality the current situation
does not reflect the actions of a loving God.
>You might as well say that God took a handful from man's rib and created a
>female, and that God took a handful from animal DNA and created man, or that
>God took a handful from the earth and made both man and animals. How is that
>different from scientists discovering the process of evolution, that there
>are common DNA features in both man and animals, and that there are common
>features in the earth that characterize man and animals? We are really only
>arguing over whether the process of human and animal development has an
>intelligent purpose, aren't we?
We can say for certain there is no loving creator.
Nobody suffers through never existing so a loving creator would not have
created if it was unable or unwilling to ensure its creation was always happy
and healthy.
>> If a god made man why does 'He' allow those grossly deformed fetus to
>> arrive
>> that are so gross the parents are not even allowed to se it [one in
>> roughly
>> 400,000 births]
>
>Everything in this life can be "redeemed" by recreation, or by resurrection
>to an immortal body.
That doesn't help us.
>What we have now are the effects resulting from human
>freewill gone haywire.
A loving creator would have corrected his design long ago or not allowed
it to happen.
>We have chosen to live in an environment that is
>freer from God's original blueprint, and the negative effects are chilling.
I don't know anybody who chooses to suffer, so you must have chosen for
all of us. What makes you think you have that right?
Of course an intelligent and responsible God would realise that nobody
wants to suffer so would ignore the apparent requests, just as a responsible
parent does not give in to a child's desire to drink poison.
The only thing required for evil to flourish is for a good God to do nothing.
>randy
Bob Young
On 1/2/10 1:19 AM, in article
lKmdnTwbALxOs6PW...@wavecable.com, "randy"
<rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
Going by your deviationary response you are stumped by that dose of common
sense that I sent to you.
Not surprising - this is what comes from following primitive superstitions
instead of logic.
Have a nice day
Bob
>
Barry OGrady
He doesn;t have any.
>Their mind is closed and they have decided to glory in themselves.
We are living longer now we have given up on God.
>They would be drowning in a swimming pool and they still wouldn't admit they
>were wet.
Christians will never admit God is cruel and stupid.
>Michael Christ
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
I hope you never take advantage of the advances in medical science.
You should join the Amish.
>Michael Christ
randy
"Superman"
randy
>> ....We are really only arguing over whether the process of human and
> No, we are arguing about fact and truth. Either it's true that man was
> created by God or it is not.
I wasn't arguing *anything* with you. I was responding to Bob. Of course the
argument concerns whether God created or not. That is the whole point! The
argument is not between creation and evolution, since God could've used some
elements of evolution to create. So the argument really devolves upon
whether there is a divine design in the way things have come to appear. If
there is purpose, as divine revelation has indicated, then there is strong
evidence that God created the world.
> People have not chosen to be born with horrible defects condemning them to
> a life of suffering, I'm sure. Fortunately modern medical science was able
> to rectify God's 'mistake' on this occasion..
I don't agree. In the interest of giving man free will, both positive and
negative consequences follow, no matter how "horrible." My argument is that
all this is temporary, and can be fixed by God. Resurrection from the dead
and a new creation can fix all these "horrible mistakes" that *man* made.
randy
randy
"Michael Christ"
randy
> You are wasting your intelligence on them. Their mind is closed and they
> have decided to glory in themselves. They would be drowning in a swimming
> pool and they still wouldn't admit they were wet.
Could be. ;)
They do appear to be determined to believe they have no purpose. Perhaps
then we should follow their advice and ignore them?
randy
Michael Christ
Well they do have no purpose. :-).
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
>"Superman"
>randy
>>> ....We are really only arguing over whether the process of human and
>>> animal development has an intelligent purpose, aren't we?
>
>> No, we are arguing about fact and truth. Either it's true that man was
>> created by God or it is not.
>
>I wasn't arguing *anything* with you. I was responding to Bob. Of course the
>argument concerns whether God created or not. That is the whole point! The
>argument is not between creation and evolution, since God could've used some
>elements of evolution to create. So the argument really devolves upon
>whether there is a divine design in the way things have come to appear. If
>there is purpose, as divine revelation has indicated, then there is strong
>evidence that God created the world.
This is easily resolved by accepting the fact there is no God.
>> People have not chosen to be born with horrible defects condemning them to
>> a life of suffering, I'm sure. Fortunately modern medical science was able
>> to rectify God's 'mistake' on this occasion..
>
>I don't agree. In the interest of giving man free will, both positive and
>negative consequences follow, no matter how "horrible."
Of course a good God would not be so focused on one aspect as to allow
suffering in his creation.
>My argument is that all this is temporary, and can be fixed by God.
That doesn't help us.
>Resurrection from the dead
>and a new creation can fix all these "horrible mistakes" that *man* made.
However, God is slack as men call very slack and we suffer for it.
>randy
RWKnapp
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:11:22 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> >"Superman"
> >randy
> >>> ....We are really only arguing over whether the process of human and
> >>> animal development has an intelligent purpose, aren't we?
>
> >> No, we are arguing about fact and truth. Either it's true that man was
> >> created by God or it is not.
>
> >I wasn't arguing *anything* with you. I was responding to Bob. Of course the
> >argument concerns whether God created or not. That is the whole point! The
> >argument is not between creation and evolution, since God could've used some
> >elements of evolution to create. So the argument really devolves upon
> >whether there is a divine design in the way things have come to appear. If
> >there is purpose, as divine revelation has indicated, then there is strong
> >evidence that God created the world.
>
> This is easily resolved by accepting the fact there is no God.
The only fact would be you want people to lie and be lairs as there is
ONE GOD and if everyone one would accept that fact there be nothing to
resolve!
> >> People have not chosen to be born with horrible defects condemning them to
> >> a life of suffering, I'm sure. Fortunately modern medical science was able
> >> to rectify God's 'mistake' on this occasion..
>
> >I don't agree. In the interest of giving man free will, both positive and
> >negative consequences follow, no matter how "horrible."
>
> Of course a good God would not be so focused on one aspect as to allow
> suffering in his creation.
What do you see as being "good" when a judge dismiss a person that did
wrong because of not having enough evidents, even if they are guilty,
they call that Judge "GOOD". People get away with evil and see evil
as good for them. etc. Man suffers because of what humans do, God
as a good God gave people a chance to follow his rules as a good
Father does to train their children so they will grow up and have a
good life, job and family. Mankind does what they want and do not
care what God wants and often I hear them asking God to destroy their
families and everything else, they say "GOOD DAMN YOU" replace the
"YOU" with anything or anyone and then say when it is damned and all
goes to Hell it is Gods fault. Even atheist pray that prayer and
curse a person or thing with that statement.
>
> >My argument is that all this is temporary, and can be fixed by God.
He was wrong as since man asked God to damn everything and everyone it
is fixed as man wanted it to be.
>
> That doesn't help us.
It would if people would you would of obeyed the rules of God none of
this would happen.
>
> >Resurrection from the dead
> >and a new creation can fix all these "horrible mistakes" that *man* made.
>
> However, God is slack as men call very slack and we suffer for it.
You suffer because you do not go where God told you to go, or follow
the rules that are set, like going to a dog show and wanting them to
cash you check as if they are a Bank. Or going to a atheist to buy a
Bible. Or want to have them sing with you all the praising God.
Would you say they are slack because they are not a bible book store
and do not help you get what you want? Your logic is if there is a
god he or she has to do only what you want when you want it, and when
all goes to hell it is his or her "god" fault. Is that correct?
randy
"Barry OGrady"
randy
>>...So the argument really devolves upon
>>whether there is a divine design in the way things have come to appear. If
>>there is purpose, as divine revelation has indicated, then there is strong
>>evidence that God created the world.
> This is easily resolved by accepting the fact there is no God.
That's blind faith. I'm talking about believing in evidence either for or
against divine design. I see design everywhere. Yes, there is design in
apparent randomness. But the rules have been established at the beginning of
the universe that always gives positive design to the universe, and supports
the survival of man.
>>....In the interest of giving man free will, both positive and
>>negative consequences follow, no matter how "horrible."
> Of course a good God would not be so focused on one aspect as to allow
> suffering in his creation.
God grants freewill to man, and gave us an environment in which the
consequences of our behavior are clearly illustrated. And yes, there are
innocent victims. That's part of the consequences of our bad behavior.
>>My argument is that all this is temporary, and can be fixed by God.
> That doesn't help us.
It doesn't?
>>Resurrection from the dead
>>and a new creation can fix all these "horrible mistakes" that *man* made.
> However, God is slack as men call very slack and we suffer for it.
Men cannot judge their Creator. They were created as they are, and know
nothing else. A judgmental spirit simply convicts us of sin, because we do
not immediately understand the justice in everything we see. But it exists,
I feel sure.
randy
Barry OGrady
>On Jan 8, 7:07�am, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 09:11:22 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
>> >"Superman"
>> >randy
>> >>> ....We are really only arguing over whether the process of human and
>> >>> animal development has an intelligent purpose, aren't we?
>>
>> >> No, we are arguing about fact and truth. Either it's true that man was
>> >> created by God or it is not.
>>
>> >I wasn't arguing *anything* with you. I was responding to Bob. Of course the
>> >argument concerns whether God created or not. That is the whole point! The
>> >argument is not between creation and evolution, since God could've used some
>> >elements of evolution to create. So the argument really devolves upon
>> >whether there is a divine design in the way things have come to appear. If
>> >there is purpose, as divine revelation has indicated, then there is strong
>> >evidence that God created the world.
>>
>> This is easily resolved by accepting the fact there is no God.
>
>The only fact would be you want people to lie and be lairs as there is
>ONE GOD and if everyone one would accept that fact there be nothing to
>resolve!
Some people are lairs then that has nothing to do with what they believe.
The acceptance of NONE GOD means no concern about what God wants
or what we should do.
>> >> People have not chosen to be born with horrible defects condemning them to
>> >> a life of suffering, I'm sure. Fortunately modern medical science was able
>> >> to rectify God's 'mistake' on this occasion..
>>
>> >I don't agree. In the interest of giving man free will, both positive and
>> >negative consequences follow, no matter how "horrible."
>>
>> Of course a good God would not be so focused on one aspect as to allow
>> suffering in his creation.
>
>What do you see as being "good"
When every creature is happy and healthy at all times.
>when a judge dismiss a person that did
>wrong because of not having enough evidents, even if they are guilty,
>they call that Judge "GOOD". People get away with evil and see evil
>as good for them. etc. Man suffers because of what humans do,
Evidently God see all that and does nothing about it.
>God as a good God gave people a chance to follow his rules as a good
>Father does to train their children so they will grow up and have a
>good life, job and family.
God as a bad God does nothing to protect us as a bad father does not
prevent his children playing in a busy street or drinking poison.
>Mankind does what they want and do not
>care what God wants and often I hear them asking God to destroy their
>families and everything else, they say "GOOD DAMN YOU" replace the
>"YOU" with anything or anyone and then say when it is damned and all
>goes to Hell it is Gods fault. Even atheist pray that prayer and
>curse a person or thing with that statement.
Why does God allow such? Does God not care about us or is God unable
to do any better?
>> >My argument is that all this is temporary, and can be fixed by God.
>
>He was wrong as since man asked God to damn everything and everyone it
>is fixed as man wanted it to be.
How dare you speak for me? Nobody I know asked God to damn anything
so it must be you.
Then if God cared about us he would provide what is needed to make us
all healthy and happy regardless of what we seem to be asking for.
>> That doesn't help us.
>
>It would if people would you would of obeyed the rules of God none of
>this would happen.
That's a terrible thing to say about God.
>> >Resurrection from the dead
>> >and a new creation can fix all these "horrible mistakes" that *man* made.
>>
>> However, God is slack as men call very slack and we suffer for it.
>
>You suffer because you do not go where God told you to go, or follow
>the rules that are set, like going to a dog show and wanting them to
>cash you check as if they are a Bank.
The organisers could not be contacted and I heard conflicting stories
about the dog show.
>Or going to a atheist to buy a
>Bible. Or want to have them sing with you all the praising God.
>Would you say they are slack because they are not a bible book store
>and do not help you get what you want?
I'd say God is slack for not making himself known.
>Your logic is if there is a
>god he or she has to do only what you want when you want it, and when
>all goes to hell it is his or her "god" fault. Is that correct?
That is incorrect.
My logic is if there is a good God that God will want everything to be good.
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady"
>randy
>>>...So the argument really devolves upon
>>>whether there is a divine design in the way things have come to appear. If
>>>there is purpose, as divine revelation has indicated, then there is strong
>>>evidence that God created the world.
>
>> This is easily resolved by accepting the fact there is no God.
>
>That's blind faith.
Its reasoning based on the lack of evidence for God and the proof that
no God with characteristics assigned to the Christian God exist.
>I'm talking about believing in evidence either for or
>against divine design. I see design everywhere. Yes, there is design in
>apparent randomness. But the rules have been established at the beginning of
>the universe that always gives positive design to the universe, and supports
>the survival of man.
There is the appearance of design but not of a designer.
We can say for certain there is no caring intelligent designer.
>>>....In the interest of giving man free will, both positive and
>>>negative consequences follow, no matter how "horrible."
>
>> Of course a good God would not be so focused on one aspect as to allow
>> suffering in his creation.
>
>God grants freewill to man, and gave us an environment in which the
>consequences of our behavior are clearly illustrated. And yes, there are
>innocent victims. That's part of the consequences of our bad behavior.
God's obsession with free will does not provide the best conditions for us.
>>>My argument is that all this is temporary, and can be fixed by God.
>
>> That doesn't help us.
>
>It doesn't?
Obviously. Knowing God has the power to give us all a good life only
makes it worse.
>>>Resurrection from the dead
>>>and a new creation can fix all these "horrible mistakes" that *man* made.
>
>> However, God is slack as men call very slack and we suffer for it.
>
>Men cannot judge their Creator.
Why not? We can't punish God but that should not stop us judging his actions.
>They were created as they are, and know nothing else.
That sounds like a good reason for God not to judge us, yet the bible tells
us everything was good until God downgraded us.
>A judgmental spirit simply convicts us of sin, because we do
>not immediately understand the justice in everything we see.
If God is almighty as many claim he has no need to do something to have
a better effect later, and many people never see justice.
>But it exists, I feel sure.
That's blind faith, but if it helps you it could be a good thing.
randy
"Barry OGrady"
randy
>>>>...So the argument really devolves upon
>>>>whether there is a divine design in the way things have come to appear.
>>>>If
>>>>there is purpose, as divine revelation has indicated, then there is
>>>>strong
>>>>evidence that God created the world.
> Its reasoning based on the lack of evidence for God and the proof that
> no God with characteristics assigned to the Christian God exist.
It goes without saying that there is design and the idea of cosmic purpose
in the universe and in the world of mankind. We see design when we see
vegetation and light that supplies us with an environment conducive for our
survival. And we see purpose when we see human reproduction and a caring
attitude expressed on behalf of human survival. This exists both within
human society, and apart from human society, in the elements of the universe
that contribute to our existence.
Your only argument against "divine design" seems to be your own false
judgment that the existence of evil and free human choices proves a
compassionate deity cannot exist. That is a poor argument, in my opinion.
Free will makes us human, as opposed to robots. It gives us equality and
value, together with other beings who have free choice. It is a good thing,
even if some agents of choice use their choice to do evil, and to cause us
to be vicitmized, wrongly, for their choices.
> There is the appearance of design but not of a designer.
> We can say for certain there is no caring intelligent designer.
Any designer that gives us free choice and the hope of redemption is
"caring."
> God's obsession with free will does not provide the best conditions for
> us.
If you didn't have free will, you couldn't even argue this.
> Obviously. Knowing God has the power to give us all a good life only
> makes it worse.
It may hurt, but it is not beyond recovery. The whole story of divine
redemption argues for the fact all will be put right in the end.
> If God is almighty as many claim he has no need to do something to have
> a better effect later, and many people never see justice.
Jesus demonstrated in his earthly life the power to make things right *for
everybody!* This will ultimately take place at the resurrection of all men.
randy
theo
> It goes without saying that there is design and the idea of cosmic purpose
> in the universe and in the world of mankind. We see design when we see
> vegetation and light that supplies us with an environment conducive for our
> survival. And we see purpose when we see human reproduction and a caring
> attitude expressed on behalf of human survival. This exists both within
> human society, and apart from human society, in the elements of the universe
> that contribute to our existence.
Why does it "go without saying"? We see what design or "cosmic
purpose" in the Haiti earthquake with a death toll expected to exceed
200,000? What design in the Indonesian tsunami with a death toll in
excess of 300,000? What design or "cosmic purpose" in the lion eating
the gazelle? What design in droughts, floods and cyclones?
> Your only argument against "divine design" seems to be your own false
> judgment that the existence of evil and free human choices proves a
> compassionate deity cannot exist. That is a poor argument, in my opinion.
> Free will makes us human, as opposed to robots. It gives us equality and
> value, together with other beings who have free choice. It is a good thing,
> even if some agents of choice use their choice to do evil, and to cause us
> to be vicitmized, wrongly, for their choices.
It is? why on earth is a good thing for us to be wrongly victimised?
> Any designer that gives us free choice and the hope of redemption is
> "caring."
What choice did we have in Haiti. Shall we decide not to have any more
earthquakes?
Theo
randy
"theo"
randy
> It goes without saying that there is design and the idea of cosmic purpose
> in the universe and in the world of mankind. We see design when we see
> vegetation and light that supplies us with an environment conducive for
> our
> survival. And we see purpose when we see human reproduction and a caring
> attitude expressed on behalf of human survival. This exists both within
> human society, and apart from human society, in the elements of the
> universe
> that contribute to our existence.
"Why does it "go without saying"? We see what design or "cosmic
purpose" in the Haiti earthquake with a death toll expected to exceed
200,000? What design in the Indonesian tsunami with a death toll in
excess of 300,000? What design or "cosmic purpose" in the lion eating
the gazelle? What design in droughts, floods and cyclones?"
As I said, there are always negative consequences to poor human choices.
Both the Haitians and the Indonesians have made poor choices in the lives of
their respective nations. Why God chose to afflict them, as opposed to other
nations equally guilty, is a matter of speculation, but a decision made by
God. I could speculate that God chooses different judgements to afflict
different nations, and that *all nations* suffer judgment in one way or
another. The problems associated with natural disasters can take place in
many different ways in many different parts of the world, but all of them
serve as warnings that we must not take life too casually. Life is a "life
and death" matter, with real spiritual issues that must be taken seriously.
We only have a relatively short time in our individual lives to make a
difference in the societies in which we live.
"It is? why on earth is a good thing for us to be wrongly victimised?"
To show there are victims to our own evil deeds is a means of showing the
evil that we do. It turns the whole world against the villain who does the
evil, because it is manifest that the one who does the evil hurts lots of
people, and can hurt everybody else. It causes society to turn against
crime, and deal with it. God does the same.
> Any designer that gives us free choice and the hope of redemption is
> "caring."
"What choice did we have in Haiti. Shall we decide not to have any more
earthquakes?"
We should determine to please God, so that He can guide us in a more
"inspired" lifestyle. God can lead His people to safety, when that needs to
take place. And if we are to die along with the wicked society in which we
live, God can raise us up in the resurrection and vindicate us, if indeed we
have not participated in the sins of our society. That is, we can be
victimized by the choices of a wicked society, and yet remain relatively
unscathed spiritually. We can be raised from the dead and cleared of any
wrongdoing.
randy
RWKnapp
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:05:31 GMT, "Michael Christ" <jesusisl...@father.com> wrote:
> >Yesterday I happened to be holding a piece of house electrical wire. It has
> >3 cores (active, negative, and earth) made up of multiple strands in each
> >core, each one encased separately in plastic. The 3 cores were then encased
> >in another even thicker white plastic.
>
> >I threw it on the ground in the dirt.
>
> >Now what are the chances of that evolving from the dirt?
>
> Far better than a magical creator being always existing.
>
> >How much more is man than the ability to make electrical wire, and how much
> >more is God than His ability to make man?
>
> Man has the power to create God but God is powerless.
The god man creates is powerless that is for sure, nice you made that
clear. Now God does not have to create man, He did that already and
let man made children and so one can say their little god child is man
made with the help of a woman. Thank God, He finished and man is not
part dirt from what God made him from. Those that know God, know God
is anything but powerless.
>
RWKnapp
> On 12/30/09 7:55 PM, in article iofmj5pm2helsln8sp94bqva20g07f0...@4ax.com,
>
> >
> Everything outside of nature that we see on this planet was created by man,
> along with all of his gods - thousands of them over time.
Says who, some foolish old man that can not even prove any of what he
says. Outside of Nature, means nothing just noise and has nothing to
do with anything. How do one get outside of nature? Such is up to
what you want to call nature and means nothing that you want it to
mean. If anything it proves God is. Dictionary says this "A causal
agent creating and controlling things in the universe" Try getting
outside the universe. Sure fly over the moon in a rowboat, so silly
then again no truth but try to fool people into thinking such
statements mean something.
> Nature [evolution] is rife with screw ups due to the random effects of
Nature has not a thing to do with evolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The dictionary shows also "Nature" means this "The natural physical
world including plants and animals and landscapes etc."
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady"
>randy
>>>>>...So the argument really devolves upon
>>>>>whether there is a divine design in the way things have come to appear.
>>>>>If there is purpose, as divine revelation has indicated, then there is
>>>>>strong evidence that God created the world.
>
>> Its reasoning based on the lack of evidence for God and the proof that
>> no God with characteristics assigned to the Christian God exist.
>
>It goes without saying that there is design and the idea of cosmic purpose
>in the universe and in the world of mankind.
I think it needs saying, and explaining.
>We see design when we see
>vegetation and light that supplies us with an environment conducive for our
>survival. And we see purpose when we see human reproduction and a caring
>attitude expressed on behalf of human survival. This exists both within
>human society, and apart from human society, in the elements of the universe
>that contribute to our existence.
Do we see design in disease and babies born so deformed their mothers
never get to see them?
>Your only argument against "divine design" seems to be your own false
>judgment that the existence of evil and free human choices proves a
>compassionate deity cannot exist.
Its proof that can't be refuted.
>That is a poor argument, in my opinion.
>Free will makes us human, as opposed to robots. It gives us equality and
>value, together with other beings who have free choice. It is a good thing,
>even if some agents of choice use their choice to do evil, and to cause us
>to be vicitmized, wrongly, for their choices.
You think a rape victim should be happy that the rapist was able to exercise
his free will by overcoming her free will?
>> There is the appearance of design but not of a designer.
>> We can say for certain there is no caring intelligent designer.
>
>Any designer that gives us free choice and the hope of redemption is
>"caring."
A designer that causes us to need redeeming and does not redeem us
all immediately is definitely "not caring."
>> God's obsession with free will does not provide the best conditions for
>> us.
>
>If you didn't have free will, you couldn't even argue this.
We don't have total free will, so if God was to change our personality so
that we only chose from good things our will would be more free, and
we would all be better off.
>> Obviously. Knowing God has the power to give us all a good life only
>> makes it worse.
>
>It may hurt, but it is not beyond recovery. The whole story of divine
>redemption argues for the fact all will be put right in the end.
That suggests God realises his errors and could fix them but chooses
not to, which is teasing, and definitely not the action of a caring designer.
>> If God is almighty as many claim he has no need to do something to have
>> a better effect later, and many people never see justice.
>
>Jesus demonstrated in his earthly life the power to make things right *for
>everybody!*
You mean Jesus could have removed disease and suffering for all time
rather than just bring a few people back to life? That's more teasing.
>This will ultimately take place at the resurrection of all men.
Why would God do that? So far God has demonstrated his ability to
make us suffer and to tease us with what could be.
Those are not the actions of a caring God.
Barry OGrady
Could someone translate Raymond's raving?
Bob Young
On 1/21/10 6:13 AM, in article
ace73ddb-477a-4169...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30 2009, 6:55�am, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:05:31 GMT, "Michael Christ" <jesusisl...@father.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Yesterday I happened to be holding a piece of house electrical wire. �It has
>>> 3 cores (active, negative, and earth) made up of multiple strands in each
>>> core, each one encased separately in plastic. �The 3 cores were then encased
>>> in another even thicker white plastic.
>>
>>> I threw it on the ground in the dirt.
>>
>>> Now what are the chances of that evolving from the dirt?
>>
>> Far better than a magical creator being always existing.
>>
>>> How much more is man than the ability to make electrical wire, and how much
>>> more is God than His ability to make man?
>>
>> Man has the power to create God but God is powerless.
>
> The god man creates is powerless that is for sure, nice you made that
> clear.
They are ALL powerless and they are ALL man's creations. That is, to anyone
who has the eyes and the will to see it.
Now God does not have to create man, He did that already and
> let man made children and so one can say their little god child is man
> made with the help of a woman. Thank God, He finished and man is not
> part dirt from what God made him from. Those that know God, know God
> is anything but powerless.
>>
So in order to experience this 'power' we have to know something !
How do we 'know' a god that never shows ?
RWKnapp
>
> >> Far better than a magical creator being always existing.
>
> >>> How much more is man than the ability to make electrical wire, and how much
> >>> more is God than His ability to make man?
>
> >> Man has the power to create God but God is powerless.
>
> > The god man creates is powerless that is for sure, nice you made that
> > clear.
>
> They are ALL powerless and they are ALL man's creations. That is, to anyone
> who has the eyes and the will to see it.
You must be in delusion such statements are not so, man is not
powerless and anything made by man, is not a real God, it is just
something they made of wood or stone etc. and yes anyone can see that
and their are lots of fake so called gods. Millions of them, still has
nothing to do with the ONE GOD that created the heavens and all their
in.
> > Now God does not have to create man, He did that already and
> > let man made children and so one can say their little god child is man
> > made with the help of a woman. Thank God, He finished and man is not
> > part dirt from what God made him from. Those that know God, know God
> > is anything but powerless.
>
> So in order to experience this 'power' we have to know something !
Yes WE do, YOU don't so just because you do not have that experience
you think no one else does.
> How do we 'know' a god that never shows
I can not speak for you, I know there is a God as God has shown
Himself to me, and millions if not billions of people over the years.
A simple example would be to feel cold or hot, why one can not see
cold or heat, all they see or feel is evidence that such is here. I
may not feel heat of the stove, but if I go to where that stove is and
seek out to see if it does have heat or if it is cold. If it is
cold, one can feel it is off, if it is hot one feels and knows by all
around it, that there is heat, be it electric or fire or just people
close together, just because you do not know or refuse to seek such,
does not mean there is none. The atheist belief is so silly, have
nothing and then try to put billions of years of nothing to make their
myth seem to be anything but ignorant is silly.
randy
"Barry OGrady"
randy
>>It goes without saying that there is design and the idea of cosmic purpose
>>in the universe and in the world of mankind.
> I think it needs saying, and explaining.
I don't. It's plain and obvious, as follows...
>>We see design when we see
>>vegetation and light that supplies us with an environment conducive for
>>our
>>survival. And we see purpose when we see human reproduction and a caring
>>attitude expressed on behalf of human survival. This exists both within
>>human society, and apart from human society, in the elements of the
>>universe
>>that contribute to our existence.
> Do we see design in disease and babies born so deformed their mothers
> never get to see them?
First of all, your argument against doesn't argue against the argument for.
Secondly, the arguments against, such as the argument for evil, has plenty
of explanations. For example, there is the argument for freewill, which God
consents to with the understanding that bad choices can ultimately be
rectified. The higher good is allowing for a free choice to be like God,
which merely tolerates all the choices that go against this.
>>Your only argument against "divine design" seems to be your own false
>>judgment that the existence of evil and free human choices proves a
>>compassionate deity cannot exist.
> Its proof that can't be refuted.
I just did above. God has as His higher good the willingness to endow
mankind with freechoice, allowing evil to be chosen as well, with the
understanding all will ultimately be reconciled by the justice of God.
It's either true or it's not. No ranting can change that. It will just make
us more subject to divine judgment. We might as well submit, for our own
best good.
randy
Bob Young
On 1/22/10 8:29 AM, in article
237f930e-e59d-49b3...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
<rwk...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 11:49�pm, Bob Young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>> On 1/21/10 6:13 AM, in article
>> ace73ddb-477a-4169-b504-bb5dc7e65...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com, "RWKnapp"
>>
>>>> Far better than a magical creator being always existing.
>>
>>>>> How much more is man than the ability to make electrical wire, and how
>>>>> much
>>>>> more is God than His ability to make man?
>>
>>>> Man has the power to create God but God is powerless.
>>
>>> The god man creates is powerless that is for sure, nice you made that
>>> clear.
>>
>> They are ALL powerless and they are ALL man's creations. �That is, to anyone
>> who has the eyes and the will to see it.
>
> You must be in delusion such statements are not so, man is not
> powerless
I said the gods are powerless not man.
and anything made by man, is not a real God, it is just
> something they made of wood or stone etc. and yes anyone can see that
> and their are lots of fake so called gods.
Anyone with an ounce of sense can see they are all fakes.
Millions of them, still has
> nothing to do with the ONE GOD that created the heavens and all their
> in.
>
>>> � Now God does not have to create man, He did that already and
>>> let man made children and so one can say their little god child is man
>>> made with the help of a woman. �Thank God, He finished and man is not
>>> part dirt from what God made him from. �Those that know God, know God
>>> is anything but powerless.
>>
>> So in order to experience this 'power' we have to know something !
>
> Yes WE do, YOU don't so just because you do not have that experience
> you think no one else does.
Aaaaah we are back with mass hysteria again ? No thanks I was alive when
Hitler and his cronies had the entire German nation following him due to
mass hysterias. It is a common instinctive fault of man - a throw back to
his herding days.
>
>> How do we 'know' a god that never shows
>
> I can not speak for you, I know there is a God as God has shown
> Himself to me, and millions if not billions of people over the years.
More mass hysteria Raymond. Come on, I am too old and wise to fall for that
old con.
It can be rewarding though, but instilling this kind of nonsense into the
minds of young innocent impressionable children to mould them into later
'donators so that some organization can become filthy rich should be
outlawed in my book.
But it will always happen as long as there are people out there who want to
be hypnotized.
> A simple example would be to feel cold or hot, why one can not see
> cold or heat, all they see or feel is evidence that such is here.
Not interested in that crap it proves nothing.
Try getting you congregation to 'imagine' a warm heater on a cold day and
see how long they go along with it, after shivering for an hour or so !
I
> may not feel heat of the stove, but if I go to where that stove is and
> seek out to see if it does have heat or if it is cold. If it is
> cold, one can feel it is off, if it is hot one feels and knows by all
> around it, that there is heat, be it electric or fire or just people
> close together, just because you do not know or refuse to seek such,
> does not mean there is none. The atheist belief is so silly, have
> nothing and then try to put billions of years of nothing to make their
> myth seem to be anything but ignorant is silly.
That silly concept can be believed only by those who want to believe it.
'What fools these mortals be'
[William Shakespeare]
When we are borne we cry that we are come
To this great age of fools
[William Shakespeare]
>
Barry OGrady
wrote:
Raymond is proud of his stupidity and his poor english.
>'What fools these mortals be'
>[William Shakespeare]
>
>
>When we are borne we cry that we are come
>To this great age of fools
>[William Shakespeare]
>
>
>>
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
>"Barry OGrady"
>randy
>
>>>It goes without saying that there is design and the idea of cosmic purpose
>>>in the universe and in the world of mankind.
>
>> I think it needs saying, and explaining.
>
>I don't. It's plain and obvious, as follows...
>
>>>We see design when we see
>>>vegetation and light that supplies us with an environment conducive for our
>>>survival. And we see purpose when we see human reproduction and a caring
>>>attitude expressed on behalf of human survival. This exists both within
>>>human society, and apart from human society, in the elements of the
>>>universe
>>>that contribute to our existence.
>
>> Do we see design in disease and babies born so deformed their mothers
>> never get to see them?
>
>First of all, your argument against doesn't argue against the argument for.
You are right. I should have asked, Do we see caring design in disease and
babies born so deformed their mothers never get to see them?
>Secondly, the arguments against, such as the argument for evil, has plenty
>of explanations. For example, there is the argument for freewill, which God
>consents to with the understanding that bad choices can ultimately be
>rectified.
A caring God would ensure there were no bad outcomes, just as a caring
parent does not give in to a child's demands to play in the street.
>The higher good is allowing for a free choice to be like God,
>which merely tolerates all the choices that go against this.
Tolerance is not sufficient. God should understand that we can only
be the way he made us.
>>>Your only argument against "divine design" seems to be your own false
>>>judgment that the existence of evil and free human choices proves a
>>>compassionate deity cannot exist.
>
>> Its proof that can't be refuted.
>
>I just did above. God has as His higher good the willingness to endow
>mankind with freechoice, allowing evil to be chosen as well, with the
>understanding all will ultimately be reconciled by the justice of God.
The existence of injustice proves there is no just God, just as the existence
of bad shows there is no good God.
>It's either true or it's not. No ranting can change that. It will just make
>us more subject to divine judgment.
I see where you are coming from now. Your church is using fear to keep
you in line. A good God would not want you to fear him.
>We might as well submit, for our own best good.
Christians can't agree on what God wants. A good God would not leave
his followers in the dark like that.
>randy
A parable of Christianity
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely
dressed couple. The man spoke first: Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's arse with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his arse?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's arse, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the
shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do
what ever wants, and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his
arse."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a
little kiss on the arse?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's arse with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's arse often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and he kicks the shit
out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's arse, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's arse for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the
money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who
got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win
a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.' "
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss
Hank's arse he'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss his arse?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his arse. Other times we kiss Karl's arse,
and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's arse. All we had to do
was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss
his arse, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy;
see for your self."
John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on "From the desk of Karl" letterhead. There were
eleven items listed:
1.Kiss Hank's arse and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2.Use alcohol in moderation.
3.Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4.Eat right.
5.Hank dictated this list himself.
6.The moon is made of green cheese.
7.Everything Hanks says is right.
8.Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9.Don't drink.
10.Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11.Kiss Hank's arse or he'll kick the shit out of you.
Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's Letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of
people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says `Everything Hanks says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says `Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides , item 2 says `Use alcohol in
moderation,' Item 4 says `Eat right,' and item 8 says `Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.'
Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says `Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says`The moon is made of
green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never
been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just
as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been
discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank
dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no
different than saying `Hank's right because he says he's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of
thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way.Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any
kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la la,la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary faints. John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my
time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss
Hank's arse for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Terry Cross
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:46:26 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
> >"Barry OGrady"
> >randy
>
> >>>It goes without saying that there is design and the idea of cosmic purpose
> >>>in the universe and in the world of mankind.
>
> >> I think it needs saying, and explaining.
>
> >I don't. It's plain and obvious, as follows...
>
> >>>We see design when we see
> >>>vegetation and light that supplies us with an environment conducive for our
> >>>survival. And we see purpose when we see human reproduction and a caring
> >>>attitude expressed on behalf of human survival. This exists both within
> >>>human society, and apart from human society, in the elements of the
> >>>universe
> >>>that contribute to our existence.
>
> >> Do we see design in disease and babies born so deformed their mothers
> >> never get to see them?
>
> >First of all, your argument against doesn't argue against the argument for.
>
> You are right. I should have asked, Do we see caring design in disease and
> babies born so deformed their mothers never get to see them?
Are you asserting that God prevents the mothers from seeing their
children? How does he do that?
TCross
Barry OGrady
Bob Young
On 1/26/10 5:38 AM, in article
cccbd759-b7bd-488f...@b9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "Terry
Cross" <tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's it Terry avoid the issue head on, what else is there for you to do in
the circumstances ?
Just in case you are thicker than I think you are - the mother does not get
to see the deformed new baby because it is so horrific the doctors advise
against it.
Your god allows that ?
>
> TCross
Father Kelly
"Barry OGrady" <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ag7ql5pph1i11n4li...@4ax.com...
> be the way he made us.
God is a mystery and is such
I would presume if we are a means of God coing t expression then we reflect
him.
i.e. inperfect and on a learning in evolution
Michael Christ
"Bob Young" <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:C7847A8F.12180%alasp...@netvigator.com...
Bob born of Young wrote:
> That's it Terry avoid the issue head on, what else is there for you to do
> in
> the circumstances ?
>
> Just in case you are thicker than I think you are - the mother does not
> get
> to see the deformed new baby because it is so horrific the doctors advise
> against it.
>
> Your god allows that ?
Well God let you live Bob!!
Sheesh, some people never appreciate anything!!
Michael Christ
Barry OGrady
Another non-answer from the one who calls himself the Christ.
>Michael Christ
=-=-=
Barry
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
I don't know what "coing t expression" means.