Why did God forgive our sins?

Cal writes:I am not sure where you are at on the point I am about to address, but i will make it and you can determine as you will its merit.One would need to demonstrate that Gods act of creating creatures with free will was bad or unjustified before any attempts could be made to designate his actions as resulting in more misery than joy are immmoral. It may be true that this will be the end result, however a better attempt should be made to understand the nature of free will in this context. Ironically you yourself are a perfect example of exacally what I am speaking about. You have before you all this information and you are choosing (exercising free will) to reject it, because it does not suit your purposes. Thats the nature of free will that exonerates God from any wrong doing or bad decisions, so to speak.Others will have ten thousand different opinions than yours. As Jaywill pointed out, from who's shall he choose?Secondly, he has provided a solution to this seeming problem through Jesus Christ, that provides a way for any and all to avoid this conclusion.Even from a finite situation, your logic would suggest that we as humans should never act because the results would affect something in a negative fashion.You failure in this context will always run straight into and fly in the face of the nature and beauty of free will. Besides salvation, free will is the single greatest given to mankind. Even if one complains that they did not ask to be here in the first place, the nature of free will and Gods gift of salvation, sets it in a category that it cannot be criticized or condemned. You have no way to complain that will be acceptable or justified. The complaint that some may disobey falls short because it could simply be demonstrated that they also have a choice to not disobey.The act of creating free will is not only amazing and wonderful but shows the height of intelligence.Imagine if you will for a minute a scenerio. God says "let us make man in our image". If indeed the angelic host are the US in Genesis, They complain to God "Won't some disobey?" And God says I have a plan for that as well, I will go down and do for them what they cannot do for themselves. Then the angelic host say, "oh yeah, but will be the cost to human race? He replies nothing except to accept the Gift and live as I wish them to as my creation. Can you imagine the expressions on the angelic hosts face? And what will be thier complaint, or what quetion could they offer in response ?Pretty impressive, this Free Will-Salvation thingy, wouldnt you say?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Cal writes:It is no surprise to me that you dismiss Free Will out of the picture, because it is the one thing that demonstrates that Gods actions in creating and providing a plan by which man could get back to him (salvation) forevermore do away with any complaints that could be offered against his actions. Your wave of the hand debaing to dismiss this very Biblical principle does not make it go away. You would need to disregard all of the passages, that both state directly and imply free will in this matter, to make it have no application. Your task is both insurmountable and ridiculousCertainly you are not so simply as to NOT see that what Jaywill means by create the sinless man, is that God has provided a way in which man as a result of exercising his free will (presently)can overcome the earlier decision (free will)which caused him to seprate himself in the first place. God did exacally the thing you are complaining he did not in the beginning, he created a perfect person, in his image, which exercised his free will to disregard Gods wishes in the first place.Your sugggestion that Free will has nothing to do with it is nonsensical and is a blatant disregard for the hundreds of scriptures which suggest that man has a choice to obey or not obey God."Him that knoweth to good and doeth it not, it is sin""For if we sin willfully after we have recieved a knowledge of the truth there remains no more sacrifice for sin" The above comment is nearly amusing. If God had created man, gave him free will, then punished him REGARDLESS of his decisions, you would be complaining about that. If he had created and without free will and punished him for actions for which he was not responsible, you would complain about that. Instead the perfect situation exists and you even complain about that. Now could one believe you are being remotely reasonable, or just complaining because you dont like the results. Is you complaint legitimate, absolutely not.Your question would make more sense if you were to ask, why do people choose to ignore and disregard His will. In this regard and in this context you are assuming for the sake of argument that the Bible is his will, as you are complaing about the plan an its results, from a Biblical perspective. In doing so you are also indirectly implying that the "possibility" exists, that God is the author and the results that follow. So please dont say that, all this is a myth and not Gods will at all, so it doesnt matter.So to stay on course, It does not make sense to complain about the results of free will, since in each case it is the choice of the man to decide his fate.Perhaps you could provide a course of action that would be consistent with an infinite perspective on these issues, assuming that the totality of scriptures is correct about the nature of God, specifically that he is infinte in wisdom. You see, you cant complain about the results of some passages without taking into consideration the total nature and charcater of God. If you do you cannot be taken seriously, as your complaint is DERIVED from the scriptures in the first place.perhaps you would like to make an attempt at showing that the sciptures contradict themselves, in the respect of free will and ensuing punishment? A simple compalint about the results of this or that without a overall perspective will not be valid as a reasonable argument. And this is excally my point. When the skeptic gets a clearer picture of what the scripture has to say in its totality about an issue, they quickly retreat to the ole, well none of it is true inthe first place. But they are quick to assume that God exists and his nature and plans are inconsistent, while it serves thier purposes. Hmmmmmmmmmm?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Cal writes:I think you are failing to the difference between a complaint and logical contradiction. You may have a ligitimate complaint from a human standpoint, but you would need to demonstrate that a logical contradiction exists given all the factors involved. You do realize that to complain about a plan from a limited perspective (finite) and contend that because he is omnipotent and omniscient, that these things should not be the way they are, puts you nearly in a contradictory position , correct? Not to mention that it is a bit ironic, for how would you know that these actions are not the most correct and valid. How could an infinite being in wisdom and knowledge, that is, that he possess all details of all possible scenerios and circumstances, possibly be inaccurate, wrong, mistaken or invalid? I see no way out of this delima, what say ye, fella? Consider the following verses: My intention by qouting these verse is not to critize Job. If I had been in Jobs place, I am certain I would have folded like a hallmark card, being the typical coward I am. As soon as the Lord started asking me questions, I would have said, Lord with all due respect I am not in any mood to answer questions, could you just kill me and get it over with. Even extreme distress Job understood he proper place of Gods wisdom, Idont think I would have been as understnading as Job.Further it is not my intention to imply that all the answers to these questions can be logically deduced, much of the scripture while supported by much evidence is still requires alot of faith on our part. Omniscience is one of those, leaps of faith. If you choose not to go down this path, that is your choice.Cal writes further:While I do not agree mans mind will be erased and this may not be what Dr. ICANT is saying, you need to understand that we (Christians) are now Presently, made perfect in Christ. We dont need to wait until we get to heaven. John the Apostle writes to living humans (Christians), "If we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another and the blood of Christ cleanses us from ALL sin""Blessed is the man to whom God does not imput sin", Charge to his account.Being perfect in a biblical sense does not mean that we do not have sin. It means that that perfection is obtainable, even presently in the blood and sacrifice of Christ.He said, "be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect". "I and the father are one", "I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me"
One obtains perfection in Christ and in obedience to Christ. His command to be perfect was not a statement to us that we should believe we could accomplish this on our own, even though the free will process is involved,perfection will utimately come from that which is perfect itself, God. Its a flawless, fool proof system, BAM.Nor do I believe God will remove free will from us in heaven, but I do believe that the blood of Christ will follow us there.As the old hymn goes we will sing his praises thoughout eternity. Reward can only have true menaing if we know why we are there. Wrong. Your struggle here, is with the nature of free will. Again, you nearly puting yourself in a contradictory position in maintaining that free will is indeed free choice, then implying by the above statement that he choice is not yours. However it is. That is the definition of free will. How can the deck be stack against YOU, when you are the one making the choice, even in these posts. Again however, we must fall back on the omnipotence to define what conditions should and need to exist.
Your complaint would be make more sense if you said, there is not enough evidence, to establish this or that concerning the scriptrures and its conclusions. In this respect atleast you would have a valid argument (not that that is any way true, from my perspective), as it stands your contention is not even a valid proposition the way it is formatted or stated. In the the instance you are working from the outside in. Presently you are trying to work from within the framework of the scriptures, about moral implications, not considering the totality of the nature of God, or the logical conclusions that proceed from that position. As I have demonstrated, your complaints will not stand the test of reason, in the context of the nature of God. Would your direct and indirect implication here be that it IS possible to do the right thing? Ofcourse it is. Your above statement reminds me of that old adage that says "Worrying about failure almost ensure failure".
Free will does not "more easily lead us to anything", this is an assertion. If there is even one person that can defy this statement, it would make it an assertion. Here is what the scriptrue has to say about the concept of free will:
"Let no man SAY, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man, but every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust (mental decision) and enticed, (mental process again) then when lust is concieved it brings sin and when sin is concieved it brings death". James chapter one.The nature of free will is unique because it is an attribute of God. Nothing in or about free will lead us to do anything. The mind and desires are what dictate what free will do or not do. You are correct it is true and intact, it is simply not VALID to show contradiction from a scriptural or logical standpoint, given the reasons I have indicated. Your only problem is that while there is an issue in your mind, there is no contradiction in the totality of scripture. Results of free moral choice are as varied as the amount of individuals. Why do more people prefer this or that in life, who knows, it all has to do with taste and desire as the scriptures indicate. Desires are the result of a mental process of choice. One possess the exact amount of ablity to do the right thing as the wrong. To imply that free will leads us in one direction more than another is not reasonable.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

IWONT WRITES:As is always the course with my brothers or sisters in Christ, I dont mind discussion, but I try and steer away from to much controversey for obvious resons.Paul said "recieve the weaker brother but not to doubtful disputations" Arguments over questions, I believe. Seeing that you clearly are the weaker brother, NO Im just kidding, ofcourse. I consider yours and Jaywill overall knowledge and experience much greater than mine.Your understanding of free will is in my view both correct, yet innocent and niave at the sametime. Its a beautiful expression of love and devotion to the Lord. You desire so strongly to obey him that you are willing to give your entire self to him. One could ask no more Yes ofcourse when we surrender our lives to Christ we lose our own will in the respect that we wish to follow his will. "Not my will but thy will be done". Im not sure though if we are justified in concluding that NO MORE free will exists on our part. The Apostle paul siad "prove all things, test whether or not you are in the faith", he was in these instances speaking to Christians. He also stated that he "buffeted his body daily, lest after preaching to others I myself should be a castaway" Now whether you believe castaway means temporaily or permanent, it certainly implies a choice to make a decision to follow through with the course."I have fought the good fight, finished the course and kept (free will) the faith" All of which imply an exercising of free moral choice. Your dedication to the Lord is so strong that your definition of free will is extreme to the highest possible good, which makes me say, that while it is aliitle distored, it is distored but in the best possible way and causes no real concern to myself, holmes. Your truely an impressive person. Yes you are correct, a child of God can never cease to be a child of God, yet I do not agree that even a child of God cannot exercise thier free will to the negative, to the point that if they continue in sin, they cannot eventually be lost. Ive been reading debates with calvanist since I was about 12 or 13 and I know the argument at this point. They usually say, "well then you will have Children of God in hell. In a sense this is correct. The chosen children of God in the OT, finally rejected his will and chose thier own to the point that God turned to another people to accomplish his will. There were mumerous people (Children of God, so to speak)on the day of Pentecost and in the years following that rejected Christ.
The Apostle John writing to Christians cautions that we IF walk (free will/choice) in the light as he is in the light to continue to recieve the cleansing affects of Christ blood.. "If", certainly implies that the opposite can also be true, that is, that it is possiblibe to not walk in the light even as a Child of God. Being a child of God does not guareentee we will not sin."If we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves and make God a liar. If however, we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us, for we have an advocate with the father Jesus Christ the righteouss". Notice that forgiveness is an ongoing process as well. Notice also that in this whole process while here on earth, the free will decision making process in is full force.
So as to your application of earthly parents, I would point out that children can act in such a way that no matter who there parents are, will not stop them form being handed over to the Judge, jailer and prison and sometines it even involves capital punishment. But you are correct they never stop being thier parents child, it just that thier free will and coices land them in prison, away and apart from thier parents,some times for life. While I agree with the passages you quoted, your comments do match what the sritpures DO NOT say. The reason the scriptrues do not mention the child of God as being the one to jump, is because they can. You are certainly correct to state "why would they want to in the first place.' However, it would be presumptuous of us to assume that many of the people here that admit they were once Children of God, but have denounced it, were actually not. How could we know thier hearts at the point of thier conversions. Perhaps they were as in love with the Lord as yourself, but then became as one of the characters described in the parable of the sower. Doubt, disbelief, lack of faith, lust, cares, concerns and all of those things can certainly drive a Christian to that point.There is no passsage that states or intimates that we CANNOT jump, if we so desire. If we are willing to follow Christ, then all the blessings which you quoted above will most certainly apply. It is also true that nothing, except ourselves can separate us from the love of Christ, but staying is a covenant between God, the holy Spirit and ourselves. Will you recognize me by the deer in the headlight look on my face? Because we in the Church of Christ do not believe in premillennialism, we believe that the new body will be preparation for heaven itself after the second coming. While it is ture that the mortal shall put on immotality, I see nothing in the scriptures that indicates we will lose our free will, since Jesus did not appear to lose his after the ressurection, or the momories he had while here. I understand the passages that deal with pain and suffering as being understood that from that point and time forward, things will be different, so we do not experience all the things we did while we were here. There will no longer be a reason to have tears.I understand the scriptures to say that sinlesness and perfection are a state of existence in Christ, regardless of where we might be. I dont see the perfected body removing our minds, free will or anything of that sort. That is ofcourse my opinion based on my study of the sriptures.If Luke sixteen is to be understood to be actual, as I believe it is, then in that existence, conversations were had where memories and experiences were brought to peoples attention. The exact words by Abraham to the rich man are, "REMEMBER thou in thy life time....." As I stated before and watching the things you write, not only with myself and Jaywill, your knowledge and experience in life and the scriptures is much more extensive than mine, even if we disagree in a few areas. It is impressive to me that you know these facts. There are some facts I probably dont want brought to my attention, even though they probably need to be. Thats unbelievable. Its amazing whathumans are capable of.You may very well be correct in the above statements. Thanks as always for your commentsD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Blues writes:That is the whole point. There are NO truely good men to begin with. So the idea that goodness can come from a human perspective and not an eternal one is idiotic. Which mans standard of goodness will we use, the one that agrees with capital punishment or the one that doesnt? The one that agrees with abortion or the one that doesnt? The one that agrees with child pornogrophy or the one that doesnt? The one that agrees with beastialilty and the marrying of humans and animals or the one that doesnt? Think I am kidding, if you could stick around long enough, guarenteed you would see it in society. Lets modify Mr. Youngs statement alittle.
There is no better love than that of the humans intercourse with his animal to show respect and impending marital bonding of the two. On what grounds will you condemn or disallow these actions?When and only when men can demonstrate that they possess wisdom that incorperates complete knowledge, then they can pass judgement on God. Anything else is arrogance and silliness. Its like a slug trying to tell a supreme court justice the best way to proceed.Besides this, define a serial killer. Would it be the person that daily stands in the slaughter house taking the lives of lower species? You see quickly how ridiculous it is to try and define morals or GOODNESS from a human perspective. Without even trying I dismantle your illustration and expose it for what it is, simple humanistic perspectives. Think about it.Cauldron I will ty and get to you latest post today sometime, I am quite busy.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Caldron writes:Where did I say we dont have Gods perspective,ofcourse we do, that is what you are complaining about, what Gods decisions are or are not. Caldroun you cant make any asumptions about the nature of God, unless he gives you his perspective. Even when he dos you have no way to condemn or citizise it, that the point. Making assumptions about the true nature of God will lead you right back to the point that you are inadequate to make those determinations. Bam. Faith, honesty, trust and love are held in a higher regard than, density or intelligence. God already has all the intelligence anyone needs. Bam, 98 FM, the voice of the haeartland. Wapner at 3:30, definately Judge wapner. If you simply understood that man does not have the ability to save himself from an eternal Judge that is himself justice, mercy, reward and punishment. The qualites of Mercy and Justice flow from his nature and are therfore the final and only valid way to determine what is fair. "Mama said life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get." You have a way of making simple things difficult. There is no majic required to ignore satan. In the desert the Lord did it by feeding him Gods words, three times. The scriptures says he went away for a season. The scripture also says,, "Draw nigh unto God and he will draw nigh unto you, RESIST (free will) the devil AND he will FLEE from you. No majic potions, just good ole free will. How do you eliminate reality from the situation. By design or creation man has free will. This is his NATURE. Yes the scripture says, We are by nature the children of wrath", yet overcoming that nature is as easy as a simple decision to do or not do a certain thing. Christ did not spout incantations or throw holy water at Satan, he simply told him by Gods word to please go away I dont enjoy your company and you have bad breath. He tends twords the wrong because he can. Free will is a 50/50 proposition. You would need to show some part of the definition of free will, lacking in its parts to demonstrate that it is not what it is, the nature of man nothwithstanding. If in any give situation it can be demonstrated that a right decision could have been made verses a wrong one, the the point is proven. Free will is exacally what it says it is.Thank you for your delightful post.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Onifre writes:Whoo hoo the drug boy is back. Weeeell, I dont know what to think after our previous falling out and your refusal to talk to me any longer, (waving hand in an efiminate fashion), can I take your return as genuine?, Ha ha. My reference to the picture that accompanies Rahain's name, as Peter Pan was made in jest, the fella is tough enough to know I was just kidding.Onfire, come on man you can do better than that, we are proceeding on the assumption that God does exists and that these are his edicts. From there we are making a decision based on what the totality of scripture has to say about his nature to determine whether those actions would be valid. The complaint from Caldron is made from the pages of the Bible, therefore the entirity would be required to make a decision. Lets say Satan was the one making these decision, then we could conclude he does not have the right because he is limited in knowldege and power, but because God is not, according to the scriptures, he therefore has the right. Do I need to instruct such an intelligent fella such as yourself, to understand that it is only a matter of time and some slick lawyer to point out that we have no right to tell this person or that person that they CANNOT, NOT do such a thing. What is the present principle, "As long as it doesnt hurt you or someone else,, its ok to participate in it", or something like that. Think about it, in a democratic society, what is preventing someone from doing this, please tell me.What human law presently exists that cannot be changed to accomodate this type of behavior. Its just a matter of time. Then your judgement is subjective nonsense, since you have no way to proceed for you to evaluate or condemn others actions. All they have to say is, I disagree and you are in the dark as much as they are. You are like the little mouse on the wheel or a person on a stationary bike, going NOWHERE really fast. Your a mean little peckerwood arent you boy? Yeah your right, it is a human perspective, its just that ours is based on evidence and reason that does not involve invalid reasoning and silly conclusions. Are you admitting that you are full of shit? Why heck, thats just plain ignorant, aint it?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Onfire writes:ICANT. With the introduction of straggler and Onifre into the this discusssion, they are now trying to take the thread back to a point that constitues another discussion. The reason they do this, is, they know that they cannot DEAL stricly with the scriptures and thier totality to try and find contradiction in the principles being discussed. The totality of scripture on these subjects corroborates that an eternal God with infinite wisdom and power, not only has a right in making such decisions, but also that he is free from any finite judgement.This move by them is meant as an distraction fromt the main point or topic of the thread. "Why did God forgive our sins."Here is the opening post. D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Its the ole cart before the horse syndrome. If you will remember Straggler, the initial contentions had to do with, a certain thing God did in the scriptures, ie, killing the innocence in the land of Cannann, punishing someone in hell for an eternity, etc. Absolute morality from a Biblical perspective, in the context of the same place the original information was obtained, was discussed in this connection. Whether God exists or whether absolute morality exists, is not in question in the Biblical context. IT DOES.Using the scripture to answer the original question or questions as, "Why did God forgive our sins"?, is neither impractical or nonsensical. Where else would the answer come from to discuss the reasons for the original questions or contentions in the first place.If you are going to condemn the Biblical God for his actions described in the scriptures, wouldnt it be reasonalbe to look in the same place, for explanations of those questions. Oh stupid me. Given the concept taught in the scriptures, that God is infinte in knowledge, wisdom and morality, you can still say that it has no bearing on the issue. Your kidding right?Also, thanks for the vote of confidence about the scriptures being consistent. Further, you corroborate the validity and reality of free will, with your statement, that, "we WILL continue to perpetrate regardless of the sacrifice". This implies that a person has a choice to do otherwise. Your problems in this context is non-resolvable, unless one does as you and others have and dismiss the content and context of free will. You validate the need for Gods mercy in the form of a sacrifice.The same context that explains that God did this or that in the scriptures, makes it very clear that he possess the knowledge to exercise this type of authority. If God does indeed exist and the scriptures in the body of the OT and NT are his Word,one may certainly be justified to ask why he did this or that, if they are willing to look at the entire context. Your ASSUMPTION is that God is evil for some of his actions as described in the Bible. You are assuming the possibilty of the existence of God in doing this. Question. On what do you base your ASSUMPTION, that he is evil?. Yes you are right, that is quite an assumption. You have no way of knowing what evil or good is in the first place. Your actions as a human being contradict anything that you would qualify you to know what is evil or good is, or the standard to let you out of the starting gates.Your assumption is that God is evil, for this or that and they are baseless as has been demonstrated. "Man says".....?????. God is only evil if you ASSUME that man has any way of justifying his actions. He does not, it is an exercise in futility. This is the type of double standard reasoning that designates God as evil, that is both nonsensical and silly. Assumption is the watchword for the Atheist and Agnostic. It erroneously ASSUMES that it/they have a valid method of establishing a standard of morality, and on the basis of this enormous ASSUMPTION, proceed to condemn not only the actions of others, but others assumptions that are based in reality and good evidence. Sounds like a double standard to me.Asumptions concerning the "evil" of God, no more make them valid, than if we are to assume you have logical and valid way of establishing morality in the first place.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

bOOTleg writes:Please excuse me for noticing, but it appears you have fallen straight into a box of pins, I would get that taken care of as soon as possible. No thanks necessary, I here to help. Wow that looks pinful, oh I mean painfulD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Quisp writes to Jihn10:10:Where in the world did that come from and what the heck does it mean? You established your conclusion on what basis?D Bertot

Stragler writes:Ill try to get to your last, very lengthy post as soon as possible, New Years and everything, you understand, thanksD Bertot

DA writes:No. The real contradicion is the fellow that stays around defending something he so strongly DISBELIEVES in. Its my guess (interpretation) is that fellows like yourself are not really sure whether the srciptures are true or not and you are hoping against all hope, that they are not. But to be completely sure you feel a need to stick around, spend countless hours and words defending against something you alledgedly dont believe in. Now does that sound rational to you.I dont believe in the lockness monster, Bigfoot or ufo's, but I doubt I am going to spend to much time trying to defend against it. Now I wonder why I would NOT do that, could it be that I really know that such things are not true, my guess is yes.Now tell me again DA why it is you defend against something so strongly, you dont even believe in? Are you sure these things are not true, or are you hoping they are not? My guess is the latter. That would make logical sense.Or is it that you like to cause trouble? DA here is another court of law and a rational way of thinking as you suggest. Take a lesson from the court of Gamaliel tothe Sanhedrin.Acts 5: Sounds logical to me, what say ye?If we Christians are having so much trouble and all of this is a myth, why in the world would you care to any serious degree. Cut the crap and come on home DA.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

DA writes:Defend what position DA? I beleive I already have. I believe I have demonstrated that for you or any other human to attack Gods doings from a limited human perspective, is complete idiocy and that you have no logical way to proceed. Then you wanted to talk about slavery and I quickly did away with your arguments in that arena demonstrating once again that you have no logical way to proceed in questioning the actions of an omnipotent being based on your subjective nonsense. I then proceeded to demonstrated that you are a part of an organization that does and has involves itself in the very same thing you detest, slavery. Im sorry refresh my memory on which position I did not defend. And notice I am defending an attack against the scriptures. Please show me where I have defended against evolution or atheism?Now you say the Bible is contradictory. You do realize that not agreeing with a passage (Matt 7:12) and showing contradiction are two totally different things correct? You do realize that simply because people can disagree in the passages that this does not constitute contradiction correct? Again, what would the truthfulness of Matt 7:12 have to do with contradiction, since you have no way of knowing what ultimate right and wrong are or are not? You see DA, you cannot even get out of this little troublesome box, yet you proceed with your arrogance as if you have. You havent even began to scratch the surface of your delima. You are in such a hurry to show contradiction, yet you are standing in a big PUDDLE of it and dont even realize it. First get your own house in order then you can proceed to question, judge and condemn God. What sa ye friend? Oh, I think I have more than a clue, to smell a stinky way of proceeding logically. I have been following the discussion. But it has never been my desire to involve myself in a discussion about a passage of scripture, with those that suggest that God is a myth, the Bible is not his word and it is the word of subjective men. Why would I involve myself with someone on a passage of scripture that doesnt even understand what the scriptures have to say in thier entirity on a subject, then after having been demonstrated that the scriptures are consistent in such matters, that same person retreats again to, "well God doesnt exist anyway, so this is all irrelevant". As you can see these are far from, irrelevant, unsubstantiate attacks. Actually any positon you take against Gods doings are a poster child for "irrelevant and unsubstantiated attacks" from a logical standpoint. Remember get you own ducks in a row first, then you can proceed to attack God.
Sorry for the duck comment, I just had to since you are in the navy, ha ha. DA, I am spending time on something I believe in, God. You are spending time defending against something you dont even believe in God and the scriptures as his word. Why bother if they are not real. In other words Im not defending against atheism but defending a thing which I clearly believe exists. Atheism is simply a concept or idea, if it were true then it still would not be a thing to believe in or defend against, because it doesnt exist, even if it were true. In other words there is NOTHING to defend. Do you see the difference? Now why does this not surprise me. And this has pretty much been my evaluation from the outset. Whichh is it, you want to debate or cause trouble or both.P.S. Thanks for being such a good HELPER to the Air Force, we appreciate your minimal support on the high seas. Just busting your chops DA. Thanks for your comments.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

You fail to see he difference between logical deduction and personal attacks. By the way thats very funny. First of ALL where did I quote a scientist to support my view points. Secondly, if you consider these to be inconsistencies, you need to demonstrate that you are consistent logically and morally, you cant.Thirdly its not that you try to show inconsistencies only its that you sarcastically attack Gods ways of doing things and deem him as evil. You personal attacks on me are of no consequence, but the ones on God should atleast b e logicaal and consistent. When you present one I havent addressed, please let me know. No no, please dont dismiss yourself from this forum, there are others here that are willing to discuss these issues with you, specifically scripture. Mine is one opinion, dont get upset, please. Well it certainly wouldnt be Percy, PaulK, modulous, Rrhavin or Rrhain, they think that most of my stuff is a confuded mess. Why sorry worthless sacks of, just kidding ofcourse.I have a degree from the 'Lord and master of logical debate' university in Neverland. I obtained my degree from the mail in degree program. You send them 20 dollars and they send ypu a certificate. No trust me its nothing I havent heard or delt with before"Truth" from a completely subjective person and positon. No wonder you wish to discontinue discussion. Thank you I intend to.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.