Summations Only

I took a logic class and got an A+. I also have a cousin named Murray. 'Prove' in the sense of 'test'. 80-proof liquor has been tested to be 40% alcohol.But you DON'T test everything. If you tested prayer, you would conclude that it doesn't work. You even have fancy doctrines that tell you NOT to test God.

When they ate the "forbidden" fruit, they obtained the moral character. God said so Himself:

quote:

---

Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...

---

i.e when Adam and Eve tested the fruit, they gained moral character. That's E gregious. Remember, A means 'not', so you're claiming sin is NOT gregious.

How does your 9 IQ qualify you to know anything?

So IS... a worm, or a thistle. Mere existence is not a very impressive feat.

I had an uncle who was a commercial salmon fishermen. On his day off, he'd go trout fishing.

You have no idea what I know. You're confusing what I know with your opinions. All I know about your opinions is what you post here. I point out where what you post is wrong. What conviction would that be? I haven't told you about any convictions. The punchline to one of my favorite jokes: I don't have to run faster than the bear. I only have to run faster than you. People can decide for themselves whether I'm ahead of Phat. And they can decide for themselves whether I'm ahead of you.You and Phat both like to blow your own horns. (Maybe you should be in the band instead of on the track team.) I'll just let people decide from my posts how smart or stupid I am. I don't claim to "understand" what the Bible says. I claim to be able to read what the Bible says. A lot of people, like Phat and you, try to tell me it doesn't say what it says. For many believers, "understanding" the Bible means juggling it. I don't have any "conviction" about the dead, so it doesn't require any courage: The dead are dead. It's a different set of chemical reactions. The life reactions are sustainable as long as there is input of food, oxygen, etc. The death reactions are sustainable as long as the once-alive chemicals last. (They are usually eaten by other living things.) After that, they tend to become just non-living chemicals. I do. He's a farmer. He says that farmers that don't return chemicals to the land are just mining the soil.I'm trying to be interesting because you're not. He did. He was also a vegetarian - but that wasn't his biggest fault. And guess what? The other 60% is something else. (I hope I'm not too far over your head with the math.)So... are you going to actually discuss the Bible? Or are you just going to be my straight-man? I can go either way.

I'd fire him.If I employ somebody whose resume includes omnipotence, I expect a lot.

You have an imaginary boyfriend. Not "beyond the book". You have rejected the book. Your imaginary messenger is a belittled version of the book. You're crazy.

You keep pretending you know what I "fully understand". Of course. Whether I identify as "tall" depends on how tall the people around me are.
​ That would be me.Of course, it also applies to YOU, too. No matter how firmly you pretend to believe, you do not know.
​ What on earth do evolutionists have to do with it? I don't think you know what you're talking about. I think the God described by most Christians would be cruel and uncaring if He existed. It sounds like you hate Christopher Hitchens passionately. So you're another one of those who gets his "Satan" from Dante and Milton. In the Bible, Satan is God's henchman. See the book of Job.So... are you ever going to actually DISCUSS any of these things?

I don't know how you could say that. Adam walked with God and talked with God. Practically nobody in the Bible had as intimate a relationship with God as Adam did. In Genesis 3, God himself said that Adam and Eve had become like Him. They clearly did "develop Godly character". But they didn't do it by having "access to God's Holy Spirit". They did it by essentially defying Him.

Not at all. Do you understand the difference between knowing and understanding? For example, I know what you are saying but I don't understand why you would think it's true. You claim to know what I know and don't know but I have never said anything like that. I think you're actually going at it in the opposite direction. You have decided what you think "God's nature" is - and you have reverse-engineered from that what He "must mean" by death. You manage to go on and on a lot about what I only intended as a throw-away line. In fact, that is EXACTLY the way the Bible uses the word "prove" - test.

They can build hate against something that they BELIEVE exists. Again, I don't think you know what you're talking about.