Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2017 9:44 AM
418 online now:
frako, halibut, LamarkNewAge, NoNukes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (8 members, 410 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,882 Year: 27,488/21,208 Month: 1,401/1,714 Week: 244/365 Day: 13/73 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   God and Satan
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 694 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 31 of 110 (491321)
12-14-2008 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by iano
12-12-2008 5:48 AM


Re: Consequential choice.
My assertion has two wings:

1) The consequences of making for example, an omlette, is that the eggs shell will be broken. There is no morality involved in a choice limited to consequences. The question is whether you prefer pristine eggshells or omlettes only.

So you are equating Adam and Eve's eternal choice of eternal life with God or eternal damnation in hell as well as the ramifications of physical death, introduction of horrible debilitating diseases, etc to the choice of wanting fry an egg or an omelet? LOL! You have to be kidding me. What a way to trivialize this choice. Usually Christians try to play up the importance of this choice not play it down as you have.

2) There is no suggestion in the biblical account that the choice faced by Adam and Eve was other than consequential (from their perspective). The notion that their choice was consequential and not moral is strongly supported by their only gaining "a knowledge of good and evil" (how better would you define the word "conscience"?)after the choice. And it was only after the choice was executed that their eyes were opened resulting in them acting as moral beings (hiding on the dawning realisation they had done wrong).

Again my analogy stands. If Adam and Eve did not have the foreknowledge of the goodness or badness (consequences) of their actions than they like children should not be held fully accountable for these actions much less damning them FOREVER and inflicting debilitating and life threatening diseases, illness, eternal death and damnation etc FOR EATING A FRUIT.

In my remark I use the term "balanced appreciation". I remarked later that there is no need to have a full appreciation of consequences in order to have a balanced consequential choice. The word morality needs to be dropped from the discussion re: their choice.

My daughter knows some of the consequences if she play's with matches i.e. Dad gets mad, go to time out, could get hurt. However, she does not fully understand the destructiveness that fire can cause and does not understand the permanence of death. Thus she would not be held responsible in a court of law for any damage or physical harm (if she lives) that the fire caused. I and her mother would be held legally and morally culpable for her actions.

Thus God should have punished himself for placing this choice in front of beings who did not understand the full ramifications of their actions.

This doesn't render them the same as a child with a matchbox however.

I disagree. Why not?

You're assuming the lack of consequential balance attaching to your 4 year old daughter is the same lack of consequential balance attaching to Adam and Eve. In your daugthers case we know she has no appreciation of death or the dangers and damage arising out of a fire.

Did Adam and Eve have an appreciation of death? I could tell my daughter all day long the ramifications of death and could show her 8 hours of movies caulked full of killing and dying, is she then culpable for any destructive actions she may cause?

Were Adam and Eve exposed to death in any way? Not according to the Bible. The knowledge and understanding of acceptable "good" behavior and unacceptable "evil" behavior and its ramifications is what marks the difference between adults and children. As children grow up, are exposed to the consequences of their actions and learn them first hand through trial and experience, they are increasingly held responsible for their actions. Adam and Eve, according to the Bible, had none of these types of experiences, death had not even entered the world yet (according to the Bible); yet they are held responsible for their actions even though they did not understand the full ramifications of their actions. Do you honestly think that they said "I know that if we eat this fruit God told us not to eat that we will doom billions of people to eternal torment and torture in hell as well as introduce terrible, debilitating diseases that can literally eat up our bodies, as well as introduce war, pestilence and famine that will brutally kill billions of babies, children, men and women, however I don't care I just want to eat this apple!". Do you really think they thought this process through to this extent.

The command "do not" is hollow.

My point exactly when God says to Adam and Eve "do not". It is shallow and means nothing other than a show of will over someone who does not understand the consequences of their actions, like a child. I have to tell my daughter 20 times a day "do not" do this or that. Do I beat her relentlessly because she does not always listen to me? Of course not. It is primarily through my and my wife's example that she learns to do right or wrong. And it is through trial and error that she learns the consequences for some of her action. Would I let my daughter cross the street on her own (at 4) so she can learn right and wrong? Of course not because of the permanence in harm that could befall her. Again why would God put such an eternal, permanent and destructive choice in front of two people who's knowledge of good and evil and its consequences are not much different than a child. Even adults have a hard time grasping the concept of eternal damnation.

Suppose one day God stands hard on Adams toe and Adam yells in pain. God says "see that grain of sand on the beach? Well, that's the equivilent of that amount of pain you felt. Now see all the grains of sand on this beach? Well that's the equivilent of death"

You are making assumptions not in the Bible. Even if you tell these things to someone, it is not the same as experiencing them first hand. I didn't really begin to understand the permanence of death until I was nearly 9 years old and my grandfather passed away even though I had been baptized by him at 8 and he told me about salvation, eternal damnation and eternal life.

If God ensures that the appreciation for the other side is the same then you have a balanced choice set up. There is no need to have an experiential knowledge of the ugliness of death or the pain of separation from God in order to have balanced choice.

I would disagree. Even adults have a hard time with death, disease and destruction much less eternal death and torment. And your placing the eternal damnation and misery of all human life on one decision of a bite of a fruit?

God set in motion a plan that involved giving every single person he created the choice of whether to reside in his presence for eternity or to whether reside outside his presence for eternity. This for obvious enough reasons: choice is intrinsic to proper relationship - for love relationships can't be determined robotically or demanded.

So does my daughter only love me because I demand it? Is she robotic in her love? She love me because of the love I show her. How loving am I to give her a book of matches and let her kill herself?

Wrapping it all up neatly in the end is the fact that Adam and Eve themselves could also be saved from their sin. They never made a moral choice in the garden so in a sense weren't choosing for/against eternal relationship with God.

This is not what most Christians believe. According to the vast majority of Christians Adam and Eve's choice was about choosing spiritual life or spiritual death (i.e. a relationship with God or not). This choices was most definitely a moral choice! You are talking about a choice of eternal consequences not just for them but for billions of human beings. Yet, you are saying it is not a moral choice? If any choice in the history of the planet this would be the #1 moral choice!

It wouldn't be fair of God not to give an appreciation of the actual consequences involved in letting a person making that kind of eternal choice.

My point exactly! The only way you can disprove this is by what is written in the Bible. However, nowhere does it indicate this. Again look at my statement above about what God would have to explicitly tell and show Adam and Even for them to fully understand the ramifications of their actions. Do you really think if Adam and Eve (or much less anyone else) understood the eternal ramifications of their actions, that they would consciously make this choice to eternally doom all of human kind to insufferable diseases, pain, atrocities and eternal damnation and torment?

BTW I am providing this argument merely to show how illogical the Bible and Christian thinking is. I believe this story like many other (but not necessarily all of them) to be made up stories of primitive people to help explain the unknown (similar to many other civilization's creation stories).

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by iano, posted 12-12-2008 5:48 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 12-14-2008 2:44 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded
 Message 35 by iano, posted 12-15-2008 6:35 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 32 of 110 (491346)
12-14-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by DevilsAdvocate
12-14-2008 10:23 AM


Re: Consequential choice.
Hi DA,

DevilsAdvocate writes:

BTW I am providing this argument merely to show how illogical the Bible and Christian thinking is.

If you want to show how illogical my thinking is you need to get your facts correct.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Again my analogy stands. If Adam and Eve did not have the foreknowledge of the goodness or badness (consequences) of their actions than they like children should not be held fully accountable for these actions much less damning them FOREVER and inflicting debilitating and life threatening diseases, illness, eternal death and damnation etc FOR EATING A FRUIT.

Where is there any mention in the Bible that the first man and woman was damned forever?

Where is eternal death mentioned?

Where is there any mention of the decision being good or bad?

Where is there any mention of the decision being one of eternal life or eternal death?

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The man was told if he ate the fruit he would die.

What did this man have to understand other than there would be consequences if he ate the fruit?

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Did Adam and Eve have an appreciation of death?

This man whose knowledge you want to compare to your very young daughter was capabale of naming every creature on the face of the earth.

This man would have a little more knowledge than she does.

Where does this belief that the first man was stupid as a child come from?

DevilsAdvocate writes:

This is not what most Christians believe. According to the vast majority of Christians Adam and Eve's choice was about choosing spiritual life or spiritual death (i.e. a relationship with God or not). This choices was most definitely a moral choice! You are talking about a choice of eternal consequences not just for them but for billions of human beings. Yet, you are saying it is not a moral choice? If any choice in the history of the planet this would be the #1 moral choice!

So because a lot of people believe something makes it true.

So again, where does the Bible say this was a decision of eternal consequences?

The decision of eternal consequences is made by each individual when they believe God and His account or refuse too.

The man put his descendents in the position of having to make that decision by eating the fruit.

God provided a way man could make this decision.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-14-2008 10:23 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-14-2008 8:58 PM ICANT has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 694 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 33 of 110 (491361)
12-14-2008 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ICANT
12-14-2008 2:44 PM


Re: Consequential choice.
If you want to show how illogical my thinking is you need to get your facts correct.

Which facts would those be?'

Where is there any mention in the Bible that the first man and woman was damned forever?

Where is eternal death mentioned?

Where is there any mention of the decision being good or bad?

Where is there any mention of the decision being one of eternal life or eternal death?

So I take it you are not a proponent of original sin as outlined by the Apostle Paul?

Romans 5:12-14,19 writes:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come...For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

also

I Corinthians 15:22 writes:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Paul clearly indicates sin entered the world because of Adam's actions thus his one choice decided the eternal fate of mankind.
Do you not agree with this?

What did this man have to understand other than there would be consequences if he ate the fruit?

That the eternal fate of mankind rests in his hands. Also the following indicates the pain, toil, disease, etc God inflicted onto mankind because of Adam & Eve's choice:

Genesis 3:16-19 writes:

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; For you are dust; and to dust you shall return.

also

Romans 8:20 writes:

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

This man whose knowledge you want to compare to your very young daughter was capabale of naming every creature on the face of the earth.

This man would have a little more knowledge than she does.

Where does this belief that the first man was stupid as a child come from?

Who said anything about being Adam and Eve being stupid? And stupidity is a relative term which depends on a comparison of people of similar age and background.

Do you consider all children to be stupid? Do you have children?

BTW, for her age my daughter is pretty intelligent. She knows all her ABC's and can count up to 20 as well as write and recognise her name (she has never been to daycare or to preschool). She can operate a kid's computer game with the touchpad on my laptop with no assistance. She is so imaginative (which comes from being an only child) that she has about 8 imaginary friends and 20 or so stuffed animals each with different names and backgrounds. She could probably name all the animals and plants as much as any grown adult could. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to invent names for unknown things, it is actually pretty easy.

However intelligence and having a full understanding of moral consequences (as well as being fully culpible for their actions) are not the same thing.

So because a lot of people believe something makes it true.

So again, where does the Bible say this was a decision of eternal consequences?

The decision of eternal consequences is made by each individual when they believe God and His account or refuse too.

I could care less about your doctrinal differences with other Christians since every Christian has their own unique way of interpretating the Bible. However, having been part of many different denominations of Christianity, the vast majority of them affirm the doctrin of original sin in which sin was introduced to humanity at the fall of Adam and Eve.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ICANT, posted 12-14-2008 2:44 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2008 1:04 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 34 of 110 (491367)
12-15-2008 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by DevilsAdvocate
12-14-2008 8:58 PM


Re: Consequential choice.
Hi DA,

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Paul clearly indicates sin entered the world because of Adam's actions thus his one choice decided the eternal fate of mankind.
Do you not agree with this?

I agree that by the disobedience of the first man sin entered the world.

I do not agree his choice decided the eternal fate of mankind.

Your quotes of scripture do not state this choice decided the fate of mankind.

If you think so please underline it for me.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

That the eternal fate of mankind rests in his hands.

But you have produced no scriptural evidence to back this up.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Also the following indicates the pain, toil, disease, etc God inflicted onto mankind because of Adam & Eve's choice:

So you don't believe in punishment. God should have given them a time out and then let things continue on.

That is not the way God operates. For every sin there are consequences.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Who said anything about being Adam and Eve being stupid? And stupidity is a relative term which depends on a comparison of people of similar age and background.

They would have to be pretty stupid to not understand what:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

"thou shalt not eat of it" meant.

My two sons knew what "no" meant by the time they could walk.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

I could care less about your doctrinal differences with other Christians

There are over 34,000 different religions in the world.

There is over 1200 different denominations in the US.

It does not make any difference what any of them believe or how they interpet the Bible.

No one will be judged by what I think or anyone else thinks. They will be judged by the Word of God.

Reve 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

The consequences of the first man causing sin to enter the world made it necessary for Christ to die to pay man's sin debt.

Roma 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

There is 1 way to heaven not 34,000+ ways.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

The first man ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Because of that act, sin entered into the world.

Also every person born into the world now has the knowledge of good and evil.

Man has to choose good if he wants to spend eternity in heaven.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-14-2008 8:58 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 9:33 AM ICANT has responded

    
iano
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 35 of 110 (491372)
12-15-2008 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by DevilsAdvocate
12-14-2008 10:23 AM


Re: Consequential choice.
DevilsAdvocate writes:

So you are equating Adam and Eve's eternal choice of eternal life with God or eternal damnation in hell as well as the ramifications of physical death, introduction of horrible debilitating diseases, etc to the choice of wanting fry an egg or an omelet? LOL!

:)

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the category difference between moral and consequential choices. By all means insert a heavierweight consequential example if you like - it doesn't alter the fact of two categories.

-

Again my analogy stands. If Adam and Eve did not have the foreknowledge of the goodness or badness (consequences) of their actions then they like children should not be held fully accountable for these actions much less damning them FOREVER and inflicting debilitating and life threatening diseases, illness, eternal death and damnation etc FOR EATING A FRUIT

Now that we're agreed that consequential choice (and not moral choice) is the subject at hand wrt Adam and Eves choice.

Adam and Eve had a degree of foreknowledge w.r.t. the good and bad consequences attaching to their choice. The temptation wouldn't actually be tempting unless a good consequence was perceived if chosing for it. Similarily, the prohibition wouldn't be recognised as such unless there was perceived negative consequence attaching to it.

What do you propose? Should God have increased the level of knowledge attaching to the negative consequences? Give more of an inkling of what death and illness mean? If he did, would he not also have to increase the level of knowledge (and attraction) regarding the positive consequencess of their choice - in order to maintain a balanced choice. Leave aside the fact that the positive consequences were a lie.

Increase both sides of the choice all you like - so long as you maintain balance in the choice. What have you altered in carrying out such an exercise?

-

My daughter knows some of the consequences if she play's with matches i.e. Dad gets mad, go to time out, could get hurt. However, she does not fully understand the destructiveness that fire can cause and does not understand the permanence of death. Thus she would not be held responsible in a court of law for any damage or physical harm (if she lives) that the fire caused. I and her mother would be held legally and morally culpable for her actions.

There is no balanced appreciation of consequence in the choice facing her - the balance is completely skewed in fact. You can assume the balance was skewed in Adam and Eve's case - but it's only that assumption that permits comparison with your 4 year old. And only that assumption that permits you to shift the blame to God.

-

As children grow up, are exposed to the consequences of their actions and learn them first hand through trial and experience, they are increasingly held responsible for their actions. Adam and Eve, according to the Bible, had none of these types of experiences, death had not even entered the world yet (according to the Bible); yet they are held responsible for their actions even though they did not understand the full ramifications of their actions. Do you honestly think that they said "I know that if we eat this fruit God told us not to eat that we will doom billions of people to eternal torment and torture in hell as well as introduce terrible, debilitating diseases that can literally eat up our bodies, as well as introduce war, pestilence and famine that will brutally kill billions of babies, children, men and women, however I don't care I just want to eat this apple!". Do you really think they thought this process through to this extent.

I've addressed this above: balance of knowledge on both side enable a true choice. The level of knowledge on both sides is irrelevant to the issue of balanced choice.

-

You are making assumptions not in the Bible. Even if you tell these things to someone, it is not the same as experiencing them first hand. I didn't really begin to understand the permanence of death until I was nearly 9 years old and my grandfather passed away even though I had been baptized by him at 8 and he told me about salvation, eternal damnation and eternal life.

Somehow or other Adam and Eve had an appreciation for the meaning of words of all sorts. It's safe to assume they also had some appreciation for the meaning of the word "death". How God gave them an appreciation for words and what their level of understanding of those words were is not relevant to the issue of balanced choice.

-

I would disagree. Even adults have a hard time with death, disease and destruction much less eternal death and torment. And your placing the eternal damnation and misery of all human life on one decision of a bite of a fruit?

All that happened with one bite of the fruit is that everyone who ever lived got a to choose their eternal destination via the fallen route. Had Adam chosen otherwise, it's safe to say that God would have enabled a choice for every person via that route.

No one is eternally damned by Adam or Eve. They are eternally damned by their own choice. We're all born on a default path to damnation by default but can be saved from that path. One of two eternal destinations decided upon by a God-enabled choice of ours.

I know it's the most serious business imaginable. And I'm not making light of the destination that faces those who chose against God. But is this not blindingly fair?

-

So does my daughter only love me because I demand it? Is she robotic in her love? She love me because of the love I show her. How loving am I to give her a book of matches and let her kill herself?

Of the various kinds of love, your daugthers love would be referred to as "need love". In part, it's a outcome (or so the psychologists would tell us) of her recognising her own vunerability and dependency on you. It's a natural thing for a child to do and that love will hopefully develop into the kind of love that is freely given.

-

This is not what most Christians believe. According to the vast majority of Christians Adam and Eve's choice was about choosing spiritual life or spiritual death (i.e. a relationship with God or not). This choices was most definitely a moral choice!

I'd welcome argument from Christians which would indicate how it is they conclude Adam and Eve had a moral (as opposed to solely consequential) aspect to their natures. If anyone could find a better definition for the word conscience than "a knowledge of good and evil" then I'd be all ears.

The consequences of their choice were as you say. But I don't read anything that informs us of that being Adam and Eves perspective.

-

It wouldn't be fair of God not to give an appreciation of the actual consequences involved in letting a person making that kind of eternal choice.

-

My point exactly!

By anyone I mean a person capable of making a moral choice. Adam and Eve were capable of doing this after they fell - they then had a morality. They also knew something of the consequences of separation from God - just as we all do. We all live in a fallen world. And we all have something of an appreciation for God - we're made in his image and likeness.

And like their choice, there is no need that we have full knowledge of the consequences of both sides of our choice in order that it be balanced. Like, could you imagine giving someone a taste of totally-blissful-heaven and a taste of totally-tormenting-hell (so they have fuller foreknowledge of the choice) then ask them to "choose" which place they'd prefer to spend eternity?

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-14-2008 10:23 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 10:48 AM iano has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 694 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 36 of 110 (491381)
12-15-2008 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by ICANT
12-15-2008 1:04 AM


Re: Consequential choice.
I agree that by the disobedience of the first man sin entered the world.

I do not agree his choice decided the eternal fate of mankind.

Your quotes of scripture do not state this choice decided the fate of mankind.

If you think so please underline it for me.

I see where you are going with this. I take it you do not believe in original sin. That is irrelevent though to my analogy.

So God determined (according to your Bible) that no matter what infraction of his laws, large or small humans commit, they would be damned to eternity in eternal torment in hell. Does he not?

So here is a question then if you do not believe in original sin. At what point does a child's disgretions against God damn him or her to hell?

So you don't believe in punishment. God should have given them a time out and then let things continue on.

That is not the way God operates. For every sin there are consequences.

Hmmm, eternal damnation and torment in a lake of fire? That kind of punishment?

What would you think if a human judge sentanced a man stealing bread for his starving family to be tortured and then executed by burning him alive on a bonfire? Do you think that fair? What if all infractions were treated the same way: parking ticket, speeding, gossip, getting angry with a friend or family member, calling someone stupid, etc. All burned on bonfires. All treated with a worse fate than the treatment we give a mass murderer or child rapist.

They would have to be pretty stupid to not understand what: "thou shalt not eat of it" meant.

Do you have much exposure to children? I can tell my daughter 5 times not to do something, punish her (put in time out, spank, etc) and she turns around and does it anyways. Does that mean she is stupid? No it means she is immature and does not fully understand the consequences of her actions. Does that mean I burn her alive for eternity for disobeying me? Of course not.

There are over 34,000 different religions in the world.

There is over 1200 different denominations in the US.

It does not make any difference what any of them believe or how they interpet the Bible.

No it doesn't make any difference what they believe or how they interpret the Bible. In my and many others opinion, the Bible is a human contrived book to help explain the world around them before the scientific method came along. So why should I care if Christians can't even agree on what their book is trying to tell them. Do I care if all the Mormons can't agree what their contrived book is telling them? Or the Muslims with the Koran?

Thanks for proving my point!

There is 1 way to heaven not 34,000+ ways.

I guess you better get cracking and making sure the rest of the Christians agree to your interpretation of the Bible then.

Also every person born into the world now has the knowledge of good and evil.

Really? Babies understand the difference between good and evil? 3 year old's understand this difference?

Man has to choose good if he wants to spend eternity in heaven.

I think many Christians (except maybe the Catholics) would disagree with this statement, as they believe that no amount of goodness can get us into heaven. You may want to read up on your NT, specifically Romans 3:23.

Why is it I am teaching you what is written in your own book do you think?

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2008 1:04 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2008 12:46 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 694 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 37 of 110 (491388)
12-15-2008 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by iano
12-15-2008 6:35 AM


Re: Consequential choice.
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the category difference between moral and consequential choices. By all means insert a heavierweight consequential example if you like - it doesn't alter the fact of two categories.

It still is a moral choice. Like I said before if anything was a moral choice it would be this choice by Adam for the fate of the rest of mankind both physically (pestilence, disease, pain, death, etc) and spiritually (eternal damnation to hell).

Now that we're agreed that consequential choice (and not moral choice) is the subject at hand wrt Adam and Eves choice

I never agreed that Adam and Eve's choice was not a moral one.

Adam and Eve had a degree of foreknowledge w.r.t. the good and bad consequences attaching to their choice.

You know this because. This is a faith statement, which has no backing by any evidence.

The temptation wouldn't actually be tempting unless a good consequence was perceived if chosing for it.

It smells good, it looks good, it tastes good and my wife talked me into it because her friend the talking snake said it was God wouldn't mind. Is that what you are talking about?

Similarily, the prohibition wouldn't be recognised as such unless there was perceived negative consequence attaching to it.

Do you think they understood the fate of the rest of mankind was in their hands?

What do you propose? Should God have increased the level of knowledge attaching to the negative consequences?

Maybe not put this pinnacle choice between eternal life and eternal damnation based on one act of disobedience in front of them in the first place? Not punish Adam and Eve for eating the fruit with the introduction of physical death; excruciating, life debilitating disease and torment, and the possibility to be damn for eternity in a fiery pit, just for starts.

Give more of an inkling of what death and illness mean? If he did, would he not also have to increase the level of knowledge (and attraction) regarding the positive consequencess of their choice - in order to maintain a balanced choice. Leave aside the fact that the positive consequences were a lie.

Whatever floats your boat. You keep justifying this myth no matter where it takes you don't you.

There is no balanced appreciation of consequence in the choice facing her - the balance is completely skewed in fact. You can assume the balance was skewed in Adam and Eve's case - but it's only that assumption that permits comparison with your 4 year old. And only that assumption that permits you to shift the blame to God.

What facts? Show us how much they knew of the eternal consequences of their actions? Where in the Bible does it indicate this?

I've addressed this above: balance of knowledge on both side enable a true choice. The level of knowledge on both sides is irrelevant to the issue of balanced choice.

Your argument is illogical and wrong. My daughter has a "balanced" (whatever that means) knowledge of the choice before her. She knows that if she plays with the matches that I will get mad at her. If she doesn't Dad won't get mad. So is she now culpable for burning down the house and killing herself since she has a "balanced" choice?

Your attempt to justify this choice between eternal life and eternal damnation is ludicrous. You would attempt to justify slaughtering thousands of men, women and children and call it in act of a righteous god just so you can keep your religion intact.

Somehow or other Adam and Eve had an appreciation for the meaning of words of all sorts. It's safe to assume they also had some appreciation for the meaning of the word "death". How God gave them an appreciation for words and what their level of understanding of those words were is not relevant to the issue of balanced choice.

In other words, stop questioning and accept everything on blind faith.

I know it's the most serious business imaginable. And I'm not making light of the destination that faces those who chose against God. But is this not blindingly fair?

Not when billions of people suffer in the process. No, it is not fair.

Of the various kinds of love, your daugthers love would be referred to as "need love". In part, it's a outcome (or so the psychologists would tell us) of her recognising her own vunerability and dependency on you. It's a natural thing for a child to do and that love will hopefully develop into the kind of love that is freely given.

Is this "need love" not real love then? So only, if we damn our children to eternity in hell will she really love me? Is that what you are talking about?

I agree that she loves because I reciprocate love back to her i.e. "need" love. Is not all love in one form or another "need" love? Meaning, that people love each other because they expect to receive love in return. That is inherent to human and animal behavior.

Yes, she does freely give this love and she freely can refrain from giving this love, as all human beings (and animals) do. Even when she was little, sometimes she would just come up and give me a kiss and a hug. Not because I did anything to deserve it, but because she wanted to. The act or behavior of love is self-satisfying (and self-centered, not in a bad way). In no way is it robotic unless you consider all our behavior and acts robotic.

The point is, do I have to give her a moral choice between right and wrong for her to truly love me? Of course not. This is an idiotic attempt by Christian apologists to rationalize the choice of eternal consequences given by God to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

I'd welcome argument from Christians which would indicate how it is they conclude Adam and Eve had a moral (as opposed to solely consequential) aspect to their natures. If anyone could find a better definition for the word conscience than "a knowledge of good and evil" then I'd be all ears.

Therefore, the choice based on doing what God tells you to do is not a moral choice. Than what pray tell is a moral choice? Please give me an example?

All this "it wasn't a moral choice but a consequential choice" is pure bullshit. It makes no sense logically and has no precedence in the real world. We are not talking about eggs, omelettes, or hash browns we are talking about the fate of humankind.

Like, could you imagine giving someone a taste of totally-blissful-heaven and a taste of totally-tormenting-hell (so they have fuller foreknowledge of the choice) then ask them to "choose" which place they'd prefer to spend eternity?

Not in the Bible.

Irrelevant anyways. No rational human being would make a conscience choice to pick eternal torment in hell over eternal bliss in heaven.

People are not making this choice anyways, they are making the choice of whether to believe in a fanciful fairy tail living for eternity in heaven based or take the realistic approach that all religion is human created and that this is the only life we have to live and it would be better if everyone could work together to increase the living conditions of each other and to reduce the destructiveness human beings have caused on each other and the planet we live on.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by iano, posted 12-15-2008 6:35 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 12-15-2008 2:49 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 38 of 110 (491392)
12-15-2008 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by DevilsAdvocate
12-15-2008 9:33 AM


Re: Consequential choice.
Hi DA,

DevilsAdvocate writes:

I see where you are going with this. I take it you do not believe in original sin.

But I do believe in original sin that separated man from God, and brought physical death to mankind.

The first man disobeyed the Landlord and got kicked out of the place that had been provided for him to reside in when he broke the rules.

That man nor any of his descendants has any right or claim to reside in that place.

But the Landlord has extended an invitation to all of the first mans descendants to live in that place.

All they have to do is meet His requirements.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

So God determined (according to your Bible) that no matter what infraction of his laws, large or small humans commit, they would be damned to eternity in eternal torment in hell. Does he not?

God has offered a free full pardon to everyone.

All they have to do is accept it.

The only reason a person will suffer eternal separation from God in the lake of fire is if they don't accept the pardon offered by God.

You receive that pardon when you are born again as Jesus told Nicodemus by believing on the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

You don't seem to understand why a person goes to hell. You think it is because they do bad things. That is not the case. They go simply because they don't believe God.

He that believeth is not condemned.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Do you have much exposure to children?

Just a little.

We have a 5 year old in our church than can explain how a person is born again and what they have to do to go to heaven. He has never been coached in any of those things. He picked it up from listening. Does he understand it. Yes.

He as well as a couple of 4 year olds we have can and do sit through a morning service in the main auditorium without causing any distraction. Put these same kids in a play church situation and they will act up like other children. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for. One of the other little 3 year olds likes to come to my house and drive my race car in NFS ProStreet on my computer. She has a hard time controlling it when she gets up to about 150 mph, other than that she has a blast.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

I guess you better get cracking and making sure the rest of the Christians agree to your interpretation of the Bible then.

That is not my job.

They are told to search the scriptures as my signature says.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Really? Babies understand the difference between good and evil? 3 year old's understand this difference?

They understand that lying gets them what they want.

They are only a few days old before they understand if they cry telling you something is wrong you will pick them up and cuddle them.

They won't be wet, or hungry but they cry. You pick them up and they hush. You lay them down and they cry.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

I think many Christians (except maybe the Catholics) would disagree with this statement, as they believe that no amount of goodness can get us into heaven. You may want to read up on your NT, specifically Romans 3:23.

I did not say goodness.

I said we must choose good.

Just a few verses before


Roma 3:23 (KJS) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
we find.

This says all are sinners.

Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

This says there is none that doeth good.

So concerning good:

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

So to go to heaven you must know good. God is good.

To go to heaven you must know God.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : spelling


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 9:33 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 1:42 PM ICANT has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 694 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 39 of 110 (491395)
12-15-2008 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
12-15-2008 12:46 PM


Re: Consequential choice.
ICANT writes:

But I do believe in original sin that separated man from God, and brought physical death to mankind.

If man is seperated from God spiritually that means he is not bound for heaven but to hell. Thus my original point still stands:

Myself writes:

Paul clearly indicates sin entered the world because of Adam's actions thus his one choice decided the eternal fate of mankind.

ICANT writes:

The first man disobeyed the Landlord and got kicked out of the place that had been provided for him to reside in when he broke the rules.

That man nor any of his descendants has any right or claim to reside in that place.

But the Landlord has extended an invitation to all of the first mans descendants to live in that place.

All they have to do is meet His requirements.

Nice way to trivilize human suffering, physcial death and hell with a story about a landlord. So if your hypothetical child disobeys your rule one time by eating a fruit you told them not to eat, you would not only throw him out of the house but you would inflict horendous disease and physical death on him and you would only let her come back if she says "I believe in you" otherwise you will burn her at the stake for eternity? Nice choice?

God has offered a free full pardon to everyone.

All they have to do is accept it.

The only reason a person will suffer eternal separation from God in the lake of fire is if they don't accept the pardon offered by God.

You receive that pardon when you are born again as Jesus told Nicodemus by believing on the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Tough choice since he makes it so indistinguishably difficult to determine if he actually exists or not.

Again what a beautiful choice to thrown someone into a burning lake of fire for "not believing in him".

You don't seem to understand why a person goes to hell. You think it is because they do bad things. That is not the case. They go simply because they don't believe God.

He that believeth is not condemned.

And you don't even understand your own religion or the Bible. I grew up 30+ years in the Christian religion and even taught Bible groups. The Bible teaches that you do go to hell because of the sin you commit.

Matthew 13:41,50 writes:

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers... and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

So not believing in God (with no evidence to prove his existence) is reason to being tormented and tortured FOR ETERNITY in hell? Does that sound rational to you?

We have a 5 year old in our church than can explain how a person is born again and what they have to do to go to heaven. He has never been coached in any of those things. He picked it up from listening.

Um, yes he is coached, either directly or indirectly. Children are not born with a knowledge of Jesus or the Christian God. If so, than why do not children all around the world not acknowledge this God and at the age of 1 start talking about Jesus? Children are born atheist, meaning they are born without knowledge of religion or a supernatural god. They will believe and recite back whatever you brainwash them to do or say. Why do you think so many of these muslim extremists and terrorists are so young? Why do you think children believe in Santa Claus until about 8-12 years old and then stop believing? Because the bombard them with the myth of Santa Claus. Do you see a parallel here?

Does he understand it. Yes.

Uhh, no. Children have a hard time comprehending this life much less the one to come. Children do not even fully understand the permanence of death much less eternal life and damnation.

He as well as a couple of 4 year olds we have can and do sit through a morning service in the main auditorium without causing any distraction. Put these same kids in a play church situation and they will act up like other children. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for.

My point exactly. He is being coached behind the scenes what to say. He can't even read yet. How do you think he is learning about the Christian gospel message? Yes kids are smart. I know I have a 4 year old master manipulator who is genius enough to know how to get her way and twist me around her finger.

Myself writes:

Really? Babies understand the difference between good and evil? 3 year old's understand this difference?

ICANT writes:

They are only a few days old before they understand if they cry telling you something is wrong you will pick them up and cuddle them.

They won't be wet, or hungry but they cry. You pick them up and they hush. You lay them down and they cry.

A baby cries because it wants comfort and food. What does this have to do with understanding good and evil???

So to go to heaven you must know good. God is good.

To go to heaven you must know God.

Have fun in your fantasy land heaven, say hi to God for me.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2008 12:46 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2008 4:28 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 40 of 110 (491396)
12-15-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by DevilsAdvocate
12-15-2008 10:48 AM


Re: Consequential choice.
DevilsAdvocate writes:

It still is a moral choice. Like I said before if anything was a moral choice it would be this choice by Adam for the fate of the rest of mankind both physically (pestilence, disease, pain, death, etc) and spiritually (eternal damnation to hell).

Either Adam and Eve were moral agents or they were not. If not, then their choice was not a moral one - irrespective of the scale of the consequences that followed their choice.

Given indications that they were not moral agents (they didn't have a knowledge of good/evil prior to their choice exercised) could you explain why you think their choice was still a moral one?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 10:48 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 4:50 PM iano has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 41 of 110 (491399)
12-15-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate
12-15-2008 1:42 PM


Re: Consequential choice.
Hi DA,

DevilsAdvocate writes:

And you don't even understand your own religion or the Bible. I grew up 30+ years in the Christian religion and even taught Bible groups. The Bible teaches that you do go to hell because of the sin you commit.

Well for a fellow that spent 30+ years studying and teaching you use such an example of your understanding of what the Bible says.

Then tell me I don't understand the Bible.

You quoted the end of and explanation Jesus gave to the disciples of a parable he told to the multitude in Matthew 13:24-30.

The disciples ask him to explain in verse 36 below.

13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Vs 36 the disciples ask Jesus to explain the parable of the tares of the field.

Vs. 37 Jesus says He is the sower.

Vs. 38 The field is the world.
The good seed are the children of the kingdom. (saved)
The tares are the children of the wicked one.

Vs. 39 The enemy the devil sowed the tares.
The reapers are the angels.

Vs. 40 Just like the tares are gathered and burned when the crop is in.
So will it be in the end of the world.

Vs. 41 The Son shall send His angels to gather the tares.
The children of the wicked one. (unsaved)

Vs. 42 The wicked children of the devil shall be cast into the lake of fire.

Then you jump down several parabels to verse 50.

Leaving out verse 49 which says the wicked shall be severed from the just.

Then verse 50 says the wicked in verse 49 shall be cast into the lake of fire.

If this is how you learned to study the Bible I feel sorry for you.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 1:42 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 5:06 PM ICANT has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 694 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 42 of 110 (491400)
12-15-2008 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by iano
12-15-2008 2:49 PM


Re: Consequential choice.
Either Adam and Eve were moral agents or they were not. If not, then their choice was not a moral one - irrespective of the scale of the consequences that followed their choice.

Given indications that they were not moral agents (they didn't have a knowledge of good/evil prior to their choice exercised) could you explain why you think their choice was still a moral one?

A moral agency as defined in the dictionary is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong". Since you say Adam and Eve were not moral agents then you are proving my point about how sadistic this decision by your god was to place a choice that would devastangly affect the lives of billions of their offspring (pain and suffering, disease, famine, death) in the hands of two beings who had no reference to right and wrong.

This choice which determined the most important ramifications to the human race to date in your words is no different than "whether you prefer pristine eggshells or omlettes only."

This is the most understated and trivialized statement of the human condition I have ever heard.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by iano, posted 12-15-2008 2:49 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by iano, posted 12-15-2008 5:10 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 694 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 43 of 110 (491401)
12-15-2008 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
12-15-2008 4:28 PM


Re: What is your damn point ICAN?
ICANT,

You did not even rebutt anything I said? All your doing is quibbling on some biblical doctrinal differences such as this:

ICANT writes:

You don't seem to understand why a person goes to hell. You think it is because they do bad things. That is not the case. They go simply because they don't believe God.

Myself writes:

The Bible teaches that you do go to hell because of the sin you commit.

You then just quoted whole passages of scripture which supported my assertion that Bible states that humans are falled creatures who deserve to go to hell because of their infractions against God.

i.e.

ICANT writes:

Vs. 41 The Son shall send His angels to gather the tares.
The children of the wicked one. (unsaved)

Vs. 42 The wicked children of the devil shall be cast into the lake of fire.

So what is the point you are trying to make? This has nothing to do with the points I was making about the insane choice your god made to Adam and Eve which would determine the fate of mankind. Your waffling is taking this discussion all over the place with no logical conclusion.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2008 4:28 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2008 7:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 775 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 44 of 110 (491402)
12-15-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by DevilsAdvocate
12-15-2008 4:50 PM


Re: Consequential choice.
DevilsAdvocate writes:

A moral agency as defined in the dictionary is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong". Since you say Adam and Eve were not moral agents...

Since the biblical evidence indicates thus and there is presented no case for the contrary, we'll accept for the purposes of discussion, that they were not moral agents - any choice they were faced with was faced with on the basis of perceived-by-them consequences only.

-

then you are proving my point about how sadistic this decision by your god was to place a choice that would devastangly affect the lives of billions of their offspring (pain and suffering, disease, famine, death) in the hands of two beings who had no reference to right and wrong.

On second thoughts...

-

This choice which determined the most important ramifications to the human race to date in your words is no different than "whether you prefer pristine eggshells or omlettes only."

This is the most understated and trivialized statement of the human condition I have ever heard.

...I'll bow out of discussion with you on this one DevilsAdvocate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 4:50 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5627
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 45 of 110 (491409)
12-15-2008 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by DevilsAdvocate
12-15-2008 5:06 PM


Re: What is your damn point ICAN?
Hi DA,

DevilsAdvocate writes:

So what is the point you are trying to make?

My point was you don't have the foggiest idea what you are trying to talk about.

In Message 39 you quoted:

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Matthew 13:41,50 writes:

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers... and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

You were presenting these scriptures to back up your claim that mankind goes to the lake of fire because of the act of sin.

In other words you did what you said those false prophets did. You took scripture out of contest to back up what you wanted to say.

I took and explained what the scripture was talking about that you were using to make your claim.

So yes I did rebutt your argument.

DevilsAdvocate writes:

Your waffling is taking this discussion all over the place with no logical conclusion.

I have discussed what the KJV Bible says on the subjects before us.

You have presented what the NIV says the scripture says and then you have taken verses out of contest and twisted that to say what you want it to say.

If you care to rebutt John 3:16-18 which tell us.
God loved us.
God gave a sacrifice for us.
Whosoever believes should have everlasting life.
God did not send His Son to condemn the world.
The world was already condemned.
He that believeth is not condemned.
He that believeth not is condemned already.

If you can't rebutt these verses with scripture this turkey is done.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 5:06 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 8:00 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 47 by caldron68, posted 12-15-2008 9:23 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017