Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 11:35 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Faith (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,147 Year: 15,183/19,786 Month: 1,906/3,058 Week: 280/404 Day: 94/73 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Let's face it...
joz
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 108 (566)
12-11-2001 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by redstang281
12-11-2001 8:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Sex was meant to be an emotionally attaching event designed to bond two people together (a man and a woman.) However when people use it just to fulfill a lustful desire it loosing it's meaning until the whole point of a relationship looses it's meaning. I believe this is why God created STD's - to punish those who abuse his gift of sex.

Oh that was nice of him. Im sure that's a huge consolation to the children born with aids "heh I may be well and truly buggered but at least I know that God punished my parents for adultery..."

Come to mention it what about the faithful spouse who contracts something nasty because their partner strayed? They didnt do any wrong but they get punished anyway....Hmmmmm...

Mate your talking out of your arse, two of the qualities you religious buggers claim for the big fella are Omnicogniscience (all knowing) and omnibenevolence (all caring).

Im sure you see the logical problem with insisting that such a God created
STDs......

Oh and I had plenty of sex before I met my wife and I never even got a sniffle so tell your (omnipotent) God he missed next time you talk to him.....

Oh and make use of the spell checker before posting please....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 8:18 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 1:10 PM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 108 (567)
12-11-2001 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by redstang281
12-11-2001 8:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Sex was ment to be an emotionally attaching event designed to bond two people together (a man and a woman.) However when people use it just to forfill a lustfull desire it loosing it's meaning until the whole point of a relationship looses it's meaning

Oh and Given that:

a)My relationship with my wife started with a drunken one night stand.

b)3 years later we are happily married

your assertion that "whole point of a relationship looses it's meaning." can presumably be discarded unless it is for the special case where the whole relationship is based on sexual tension anyway.....

In which case having sex early in a relationship is a good thing as it will expose purely physical attractions for what they are....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 8:18 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 1:34 PM joz has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 108 (580)
12-11-2001 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by redstang281
12-11-2001 1:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I'm not judging you on the courses of your life

Wow that's nice of you.

quote:
as I am sure I have followed some that I regret. God cursed man when man sinned. When man judges God, God does not always fit the definition of fair, but it is not in our place to judge God. He has a reason for doing everything that he does. In everyone's life bad things are going to happen, just as good things will. The bad things will always be attributed to Adam and Eve's sinning which is a perfect example of everyone in the human race. The bible says no one is innocent of sin. So when you say "this person didn't do anything wrong" that is not true from a Christian perspective. Most atheist make the mistake of assuming the bible is trying to say that God makes life perfect(no disease, no pain.. etc.) While it is true that God did make life perfect in the beginning, man destroyed that perfection. What the bible is saying is that heaven is perfect, all things residing in heaven are perfect, and the only way that an imperfect man can get into heaven is through the perfect savior Jesus Christ.

Im sorry but arguing that an unborn child has already sinned and deserves to be born with aids isnt terribly convincing as evidence of an omnibenevolent big fella....

quote:
Please don't resort to that level. I'm not attacking you, just explaining things from a Christian perspective. I would hope that you would appreciate my replies.

I was just pointing out the availability of a spell checker.

I hope you asked Santa for some thicker skin.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 1:10 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:24 PM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 108 (602)
12-11-2001 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by redstang281
12-11-2001 3:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
"Im sorry but arguing that an unborn child has already sinned and deserves to be born with aids isnt terribly convincing as evidence of an omnibenevolent big fella...."

The world is no longer perfect. That is because of man, not because of God.

"I hope you asked Santa for some thicker skin....."

I probably should ask Santa, because evolution won't help. Sorry, low blow I know Just a joke.


LOL I quite agree it would only possibly benefit your very distant descendants...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 3:24 PM redstang281 has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 108 (617)
12-12-2001 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by mark24
12-12-2001 3:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
Didn't God create heaven & earth & LUCIFER???? To say he didn't implies that not everything is Gods work. Tut, tut. So why create something thats going to backstab you? God either deliberately created Lucifer to backstab him, or is such a bad designer he forgot to edit "evil" out. Same goes for Man.

I once read a book by Peter Ustinov called the old man and mr smith it is about God and the devil meeting up on earth to see how things are going...

They discuss many things and in the course of the conversation mr smith asks why the old man pushed him out of heaven...

The old mans answer is that he needed something to be compared with in order to be seen as perfectly good, besides he adds you were getting bored anyway....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mark24, posted 12-12-2001 3:36 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by mougios, posted 03-02-2004 4:16 AM joz has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 108 (622)
12-12-2001 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by redstang281
12-12-2001 8:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Unborn children did fall. The biblical account of Adam eating the apple when God specifically told him not to is the example to illustrated that man by nature can not obey God's rules. Sense we all came from Adam we all carry his sin with us. Just as anyone of us would have eating that apple if we would have been in the same situation.

Jesus died for our sins so that we can enter heaven, not so that the world could become perfect again.

Yes, God is hard to please. God is impossible for man to please. EVERYONE falls short of God's commandments and each one of those is a sin. Jesus did for the sin you committed, are committing currently, and the sin you destined to commit. For nothing can enter heaven that is not pure, but God with God anything is possible so Jesus is the path God gives us to take.


Ok:

a)Is there a set of internally consistent rules to follow in order to avoid sinning?

b)If there is I suggest it is possible to follow the rules and not sin.

c)If this is the case I stipulate that if there is free will we are not sinners until we ourselves have sinned.

d)In which case an unborn child is not a sinner or there is no free will.

So which is it to be original sin or free will? One of them needs to be voted off the island....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:08 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 9:48 AM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 108 (634)
12-12-2001 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by redstang281
12-12-2001 9:48 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Because God knows the future doesn't mean he controls it. You can plant a grass seed and know that it will only grow up grass and not a palm tree because you know the nature of the seed.

That is besides the point you cannot have both original sin and free will, One claims you will sin as a matter of course, the other that you determine your own actions....

So which is it to be free will of original sin you cant have both.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 9:48 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 10:24 AM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 108 (641)
12-12-2001 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by redstang281
12-12-2001 10:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:

Because you can not jump to the moon does that mean you do not have free will? It just means you are incapable of jumping to the moon. Just as man is incapable of not sinning but still has free will.

But free will allows that a mans actions are not predetermined it is therefore feasible that a man acting of his own free will would not sin. You seem to be claiming that original sin implys that man must sin therefore renouncing the self determination imbued by free will.....

I ask again do you believe in free will or original sin for the two are mutually exclusive as you present them....

On another note your jumping to the moon analogy is faulty in that man has jumped to the moon (it took a long time, a lot of money and even more skull sweat but NASA did it).....

[This message has been edited by joz, 12-12-2001]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 10:24 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 12:04 PM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 108 (655)
12-12-2001 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by redstang281
12-12-2001 12:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
The analogy meant with his own two feet. Geez!! Give me a break here.

I will say again, and I will say it over and over again if I have to, I believe in free will AND original sin. Because God set the standard of rules only on his attainability, it is impossible for a mortal man to comply with each rule. And the sin of Adam weighs upon all of our shoulders.


And I assert that in any system where the plenun of choices is restricted there is no free will.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 12:04 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 12:25 PM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 108 (661)
12-12-2001 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by redstang281
12-12-2001 12:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Having a limit to what you can do does not mean you have no free will.

Because you can not grow to be 20 feet tall doesn't mean you don't have free will.

You have free will to attempt the impossible, but that doesn't mean you can obtain the impossible.


But by your own logic if original sin holds true man cannot ever make an honest attempt at living free from sin so their free will is constrained and therefore a misnomer....

I can make an honest effort to discover surgical, genetic manipulation techniques to achieve the end of growing to be 20 ft tall...

I may fail in both cases the difference is that there is a possible solution that involves the achievement of my aims in the second case, a solution that is missing assuming your original sin constraint of free will....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 12:25 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 1:11 PM joz has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 108 (682)
12-12-2001 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by redstang281
12-12-2001 3:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I ask athiest and evolutionist to think in terms of creation for one momment please. If everyone from Adam until present day obeyed the law in the bible of waiting until marriage to have sex, don't you think std's would barely be anything of a problem?


Or if everyone got tested and practiced safe sex stds would die out quickly as well....

Are you trying to argue that a model for societies behavior should be morally judged on the basis of its ability to combat STDs?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:18 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:51 PM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 108 (685)
12-12-2001 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by redstang281
12-12-2001 3:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Some std's can not be prevented. Ghoneria, crabs... etc.

I'm not saying a model for society should be judged on it's basis of combating std's, I'm saying that if we listened to the bible we wouldn't have to fight std's as much. But I will go as far as to claim that this is one example of how if society was based on God's law that it would be perfect.


That's entirely subjective pal Im sure that Im not the only one who would not accept a society where there was no premarital sex as perfect....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 3:51 PM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by redstang281, posted 12-13-2001 8:21 AM joz has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 108 (741)
12-14-2001 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by redstang281
12-14-2001 7:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Was everyone asking me those questions to try and disprove God to me, or to try and better understand the Christian concept of God?

Will you please try to understand I am not trying to disprove God I was merely pointing out the logical inconsistency in a loving God creating STDs which afflict not only those who indulge in promiscuous behavior...

I was reading an article on the BBC news page today apparently 25% of pregnant women in South Africa are HIV positive and 30% of these will have children who contract HIV in utero....Nice one Redstangs God......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 7:49 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 9:41 AM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 108 (747)
12-14-2001 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by redstang281
12-14-2001 9:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
Just because we are being punished doesn't mean God doesn't love us. That's all I'm trying to say.

The other point I have been trying to make is that the whole concept of free will is inadmissible if God punishes people before they use that free will to choose to sin. In effect predetermining that they will sin before they make their free will choice not to....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 9:41 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 10:35 AM joz has responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 108 (751)
12-14-2001 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by redstang281
12-14-2001 10:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
I completly proved that point wrong.

Because you can't do something doesn't mean you can't try to do something.

That concept is really that simple to understand.


Im sorry but you have not...

You have to prove that it is theoretically impossible for man not to sin...

Otherwise your concept of original sin is meaningless...

But if you prove original sin in that way you have in effect predestined every human to ever live to sin therefore they have no free will not to sin therefore it is immoral for God to punish them if they have no choice....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 10:35 AM redstang281 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by redstang281, posted 12-14-2001 10:49 AM joz has responded

  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019