Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[Adam5]

 

Hi Stranger, have a read of my thread - what is the most absurd Christian teaching.

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/52225-what-is-the-most-absurd-christian-teaching/

[Adam5]

God is good but He does allow bad things to happen, for a better future. Many bible stories share this in common.

 

Like the God-approved genocide of Joshua and his soldiers going from city to city killing everything that breathes.

 

Then in the new testament God in the human form of Jesus is preaching love, meekness and is cuddling lambs.

 

This is some make over, dontchathink?

[bornagainathiest]

 

Hi Stranger, have a read of my thread - what is the most absurd Christian teaching.

http://www.ex-christ...stian-teaching/

 

You won't get a word of disagreement from me on the absurdity of Christian teaching, Adam.

 

But please be warned about the Stranger.

 

He believes the Bible to be God's perfect and infallible word. It is so because he believes it is so.

His belief about this trumps any objection to the contrary. Because he believes it to be true, it is true.

When shown a Bible contradiction he uses any and every version / interpretation / commentary he can find to resolve that contradiction in any way that suits him.

He cuts himself enough slack to MAKE the Bible read perfect and read true because if he believes it's perfect and true - then it MUST be so.

The bottom line every time, is his unwavering belief that it is perfect and true, regardless of the accepted rules of Biblical exegesis, regardless of the absence of any extra-biblical evidence and regardless of anything resembling reason.

 

So there's little point in asking him to think about the difference between the OT and NT description of God.

Thinking critically isn't his strong point. He's all about believing.

 

However, as you can see, I'm trying (again!) to see if he's able and/or willing to embrace the idea of objective evidence.

Right now, the Stranger's beliefs tell him what is real and true. Right now, because he believes something, that's what's real and true. And if it's true for him, it must also be true for us.

 

I'm trying to open his eyes to the simple truth that only what is objectively true for everyone is objectively true for him too.

 

It's a drawn-out, difficult, uphill struggle! But I persist, for the sake of the cause.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Adam5]

It's a drawn-out, difficult, uphill struggle! But I persist, for the sake of the cause.

 

That's very nice of you to help him out. I didnt realise he was a fundamentalist!

 

In my Christian days, I conversed on a forum with plenty of fundies who believed every word of the buybull was 100% true. Even the most evil atrocities and massacres from the old testament, they would justify.

 

I felt a bit sorry for them cause they had brainwashed themselves so much, and would get a pasting all the time from visiting Atheists. But I found it difficult to understand and relate to how anyone could be so far gone from reality.

[Ouroboros]

If the sun was much closer to the earth, or the earths rotation would somehow slow down or go a little off track, or global warming was true, what would soon happen to the earth?

It's only half-right. Look up aphelium and perihelium. Earth is closer and farther away in a range of 10% (I think it is). Each year.

 

http://en.wikipedia....on_of_the_Earth

 

by chance nothing gets done. You can all vouch for that. If your wife left the dishes to do themself by chance you would run out of dishes and by the same logic you would be fired from your job. By chance, (though deformities happen) I do not see the things I would see if in fact life was chance or evelution. Half monkey men, half fish camels, half bird pigs. You get the point. If such a process billions of years then these facts would be more prevelent.

??? Half monkey men? First of all, it's ape-man, not monkey-man, and yes, they did exist. I've held skulls of several species. And it's clear that they were a breed between ape and man, very clear in fact.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

Hi Stranger, have a read of my thread - what is the most absurd Christian teaching.

http://www.ex-christ...stian-teaching/

 

You won't get a word of disagreement from me on the absurdity of Christian teaching, Adam.

 

But please be warned about the Stranger.

 

He believes the Bible to be God's perfect and infallible word. It is so because he believes it is so.

His belief about this trumps any objection to the contrary. Because he believes it to be true, it is true.

When shown a Bible contradiction he uses any and every version / interpretation / commentary he can find to resolve that contradiction in any way that suits him.

He cuts himself enough slack to MAKE the Bible read perfect and read true because if he believes it's perfect and true - then it MUST be so.

The bottom line every time, is his unwavering belief that it is perfect and true, regardless of the accepted rules of Biblical exegesis, regardless of the absence of any extra-biblical evidence and regardless of anything resembling reason.

 

So there's little point in asking him to think about the difference between the OT and NT description of God.

Thinking critically isn't his strong point. He's all about believing.

 

However, as you can see, I'm trying (again!) to see if he's able and/or willing to embrace the idea of objective evidence.

Right now, the Stranger's beliefs tell him what is real and true. Right now, because he believes something, that's what's real and true. And if it's true for him, it must also be true for us.

 

I'm trying to open his eyes to the simple truth that only what is objectively true for everyone is objectively true for him too.

 

It's a drawn-out, difficult, uphill struggle! But I persist, for the sake of the cause.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

That could explain why he is ignoring alot of what I am saying about the problem of evil.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Hi Stranger, have a read of my thread - what is the most absurd Christian teaching.

http://www.ex-christ...stian-teaching/

 

Big snip!

 

That could explain why he is ignoring alot of what I am saying about the problem of evil.

 

Could be, Valk.

 

Some time ago I tried to teach him the very basics (the difference between a belief and a fact) but he didn't (or couldn't) stick with it. It looks like all my efforts were wasted on him and he hasn't (or can't) learn a thing.

 

He's got a serious lack of focus, discipline and self-control, being led erratically thru his feelings, thru wishful thinking and ascribing to unsupportable beliefs. That's why I have to repeatedly request for him to answer only what I ask; not to veer off when a new tangent when a new thought enters his head, not to add anything to the question and not to take anything away from it and so on and so on, ad nauseaum.

 

Yes, it's hard work.

But there are a couple of benefits.

 

1.

Doing this disciplines me to write as simply, clearly and precisely as possible. That's no bad thing.

 

2.

The lurkers, waverers, undecided and de-converting who take the time to read this dialog will see just how bad the Stranger's problems are...

 

(no proper concept of logic, no idea about presenting an argument, no ability to tell the difference between a subjective belief and an objective fact, no idea what constitutes proper Biblical exegesis, no concept of what constitutes proper evidence, no self-discipline, short attention span, poor reading and writing skills, poor research skills, poor comparison skills, poor analysis skills)

 

...and realize that nothing he writes makes any kind of sense.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[★ Citsonga ★]

^Stranger,

 

^{It's really quite simple.}

^{Here's how objective evidence works.}

 

1.

^{Bob and Joe are in Toledo. Bob believes that it's raining in Cleveland. Bob tells Joe what he believes. Bob doesn't give any objective evidence as to why he believes it's raining there, but he asks Joe to believe him anyway. What should Joe do? Believe Bob without any objective evidence, refuse to believe him, say that the answer can never be known or check it out for himself? Now, if I were Joe I'd make a call and find out. If Joe finds out that it's not raining in Cleveland, is he right not to believe what Bob says? Yes or No.}

^{(Please answer this question, Stranger. Please just say Yes or No. Thanks.)}

 

^{That was an example of where someone's belief can be easily checked against the objective evidence. Do you see how that works?}

^{(Please answer this question. When answering please remember to stick only to what I've written. Please don't stray off the subject and please don't add or take away anything from what I've written. Please just deal only with the question. Thanks. )}

 

^2.

^{Bob believes that 5 million years ago aliens from the planet Scrblz landed where Toledo is today. Bob doesn't give any objective evidence why he believes this, but he asks Joe to believe him anyway. What should Joe do? Believe Bob without any objective evidence, refuse to believe him, say that the answer can never be known or check it out for himself? Now, if I were Joe I'd tell Bob that the answer can never be known. That's because there were no humans around 5 million years ago. There are no photos, no video footage, no written accounts of the landing, no ancient stories about aliens arriving there, no eye witnesses, no nothing. Joe can't find out if Bob is right or wrong about the aliens, so is he right to tell Bob that the answer can never be known? Yes or No.}

^{(Please answer this question, Stranger. Please just say Yes or No. Thanks.)}

 

^{That was an example of where someone's belief can't be checked against the objective evidence because there is no evidence. Do you see how this works?}

^{(Please answer this question. When answering please remember to stick only to what I've written. Please don't stray off the subject and please don't add or take away anything from what I've written. Please just deal only with the question. Thanks.)}

 

^{I look forwards to your answers, Stranger.}

 

^{Here's a quick reminder of them.}

 

^{If Joe finds out that it's not raining in Cleveland, is he right not to believe that Bob says it is? Yes or No.}

^{Do you see how Bob's belief can be checked against the objective evidence? Yes or No.}

^{Is Joe right to tell Bob that there's no way of knowing if aliens landed 5 million years ago? Yes or No.}

^{Do you see how Bob's belief can't be checked against the objective evidence? Yes or No.}

^Thanks,

 

^BAA.

 

Good points. One thing that could be added is something like this:

 

If Joe finds out that Bob was mistaken on what can be tested, then should Joe just blindly accept Bob as a reliable source on what cannot be tested? Yes or No.

 

OK, I'll shut up now and let you two have your own conversation.

[the stranger]

I will spend some time answering the high point questions shortly, but before I do, I was thinking of a couple questions myself.

God is evil because He allowed us to bring the curse of it into this world causing much death and suffering, which happened to be a blessing from God, that is, free will instead of slavery, which results in both blessings and curses. Why do we like sports? because everyone is a winner? I don't think so. Humans enjoy free choice and we enjoy being rewarded for a win.

God is evil because He kills ( Judges ) people and nations often through others, but also because He doesn't judge, or get rid of evil. Does this make scense?

Soo-- God can't judge, can't allow evil into this world, can't give free will because in order to stop all bad thingd He would have to stop all of our selfish choices as all actions have effects.

It seems you expect what is not possible. Can I vacume a house if I cannot use a vacume? Can I keep my rug clean if I cannot use the tools needed? Besides! Who are you? Is it not my rug?

I think it's ironic how we drive nails into Christ's hands and call Him guilty when we are the ones with sin! NO? Have you ever told a lie? In court this is punishable. Right and wrong to someone who does not believe in a diety becomes all a matter of different opions. Many courts have alreay gave slaps on the hands for major crimes because of "the way they were born". Is this really often a reason for a get out of jail free card? When right and wrong becomes everyones own meaning no one is safe.

I will give highlighted answeres shortly.

[the stranger]

Ok, i might have to break this up but i got all the chosen answers down.

Is it logical that God could just give us good choices when in fact evil comes as a result of emotions and desires and holds it's realalities with selfeshness, pride and hatered of others. you cant have free will and no possibility of evil.

Is God really held accountable just up on known what decisions we will make? Did He not make us good and we chose evil? Mayby our poor choices have lead others to reconize light.

Born again, you are stuck in a black and white world where no mixture of colors are played out. You see a line when it's a foot print. You take out the option for people to be able to decide what is fact or fiction for themselves by leaving out half the story. PS objective evidence for proof of no God?

God not being created not making scence. Can we even wrap our minds around (eternal) life?

The rain question? maybe it was raining earlier. Mayby it rained in the Cleveland area but not the city. To many possibilities. Defense lawyers use this tactic for a reason. It eliminates the whole picture and allows you only to c what 1 wants. I will finish up in a minute. About the alian though, there cab be logical assumptions or guesses made about what may be seen, known, or believed. Only very clear cut n paste questions can have absalutes.

[the stranger]

Adam 5, good to meet u. The God of the OT is the same of the NT minus the war setting in the NT as God even today uses these same measures to bring judgement, to wipe out evil. Ofcourse, I am not sure if it is just for God to allow evil or wipe it out yet?

Ouroborus, do u have a link with pictures of these ape men. It might be neat to take a peak.

Thanks for reading guys. I am going to try being back on here a little later tonight.

[the stranger]

I almost forgot. Did God create evil? Check the word in Isiaih carefully. In the KJV it is the only time translated evil with every other time translated clamaty or disaster. Its been a bit since I researched this but when I did it became clear that the authors intents were not of our understanding of evil, but clamity, and in that scence it was translated evil. This can also be shown by there, if i remember right, just one main word used in the OT for the meaning of evil such as the realality of or presence of and never ever the one used in Isiaih. Unfortuntly, my resources r not the same now as i will b moving in a week n a half, but i encourage all to do a real heart and fact study on this for themselves.

God bless

[Adam5]

Adam 5, good to meet u. The God of the OT is the same of the NT minus the war setting in the NT as God even today uses these same measures to bring judgement, to wipe out evil.

 

Hi Stranger, nice to "meet" you too.

 

I spent 4 to 5 years as a Christian, so I've been where you are now. Years spent lying to myself and deluding myself.

 

Debating on the internet with Atheists and Unbelievers of different ilks telling them this and that. Sometimes on occasion even telling Atheists they were "demon possessed", which I am now ashamed of.

 

We construct an imaginary world in our own heads and convince ourselves we are being rational. When the reality is the buybull is nonsense, and we are just lying to ourselves.

 

I retain some spiritual beliefs, but Christianity is not for me. I feel it has damaged my psychologically.

 

I hope you understand where I'm coming from. I wish you well in your spiritual journey.

 

btw the NT and OT are incompatible. Anyone without Jesus glasses knows this

[★ Citsonga ★]

Howdy, Stranger. Welcome back.

 

God is evil because He allowed us to bring the curse of it into this world causing much death and suffering,

 

According to the Bible, it was GOD who put the curse on the world, not man.

 

which happened to be a blessing from God, that is, free will instead of slavery,

 

According to the Bible, God was perfectly fine with slavery, as long is it was the Israelites who were the slavemasters. They were granted permission to capture foreigners, put them into forced labor, and even abuse them. They were even granted permission to capture young foreign virgins and force them into marriage with Israelis, which is basically rape.

 

 

Humans enjoy free choice and we enjoy being rewarded for a win.

 

Whoop-de-doo.

 

God is evil because He kills ( Judges ) people and nations often through others, but also because He doesn't judge, or get rid of evil. Does this make scense?

 

Provide examples of what you're referring to.

 

It seems you expect what is not possible.

 

It seems that you're too blinded by the nonsense you've swallowed to think rationally. I pretty much understand, though, because I was in your shoes for many years.

 

Gotta go....

[Adam5]

According to the Bible, God was perfectly fine with slavery, as long is it was the Israelites who were the slavemasters. They were granted permission to capture foreigners, put them into forced labor, and even abuse them. They were even granted permission to capture young foreign virgins and force them into marriage with Israelis, which is basically rape.

 

Great point. Same goes for the Quran. No loving and compassionate deity would tolerate, let along encourage, such cruelty.

[bornagainathiest]

Born again, you are stuck in a black and white world where no mixture of colors are played out. You see a line when it's a foot print. You take out the option for people to be able to decide what is fact or fiction for themselves by leaving out half the story. PS objective evidence for proof of no God?

 

No, Stranger! You are wrong.

 

I'm not stuck in a B&W world.

It is you who are stuck in a fantasy world of self-delusion, where you think you can decide what is real and what isn't.

 

We ALL live in a world that doesn't give us any choice about certain things. This includes you, whether you like it or not and whether you believe it or not. As far as I can see, you've simply chosen to live in complete and total denial of this fact of life. I can prove this. I can prove that we all live in a world where our beliefs DON'T and CAN'T change certain things. Watch and learn.

 

I'm 53 years old.

Q. If I choose to believe that I'm 530 years old, will my belief actually change the fact of my real age?

A. No. My real age is my real age, no matter what I believe. That is a fact. My belief cannot change this fact.

 

See?

You can believe what you like, but your beliefs won't change certain things and your beliefs won't MAKE anything change.

That's why Christians can't heal amputees.

That's why Christians can't heal AIDS or cancer.

That's why Christians can't drink poison without dying.

That's why Christians can't resurrect month-dead corpses.

That's why Christians can't move mountains by faith.

Etc., etc., ad nauseaum.

Belief changes nothing except the mind of the believer - for the worse. You are living proof of that sad fact, Stranger.

 

Interestingly enough, I wrote this about you yesterday...

"Some time ago I tried to teach him [the Stranger] the very basics (the difference between a belief and a fact) but he didn't (or couldn't) stick with it. It looks like all my efforts were wasted on him and he hasn't (or can't) learn a thing."

 

Today I think I'll take that back and change my opinion about you.

Instead of saying that you don't understand the difference between a belief and a fact, I'll revise that and say that you just deny any fact you don't like and opt to believe something else. Therefore you are a Denialist. Here's a quick definition of that word for you to read... and deny.

 

"Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[it] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".

 

As further proof that you are in denial about reality, look at this. You wrote...

"You take out the option for people to be able to decide what is fact or fiction for themselves by leaving out half the story."

 

People can decide for themselves what is fact and what is fiction?

Do you really understand what you're saying here?

That we can choose what is real and what isn't?

That reality has no power over us?

What are you smoking, buddy?

 

I suppose you think we're all living in The Matrix and we can just choose to leap over buildings or choose not to be harmed by a salvo of gunshots to the chest? I suppose you choose to fly to work every morning, in defiance of gravity? And when the time comes, you'll just choose not to die, right?

 

We can choose what is fact? Really?

 

 

Lastly... you're asking me for objective evidence for proof of no God?

 

Stranger, I won't be answering that question, because of three things, all of which show your obvious failings.

 

1.

Proof of no God.

You clearly don't understand the first thing about logic.

It is not possible to prove a negative. The non-existence of something cannot be proven. Only the presence or existence of something can be proven. If you had even the slightest grasp of how logical argument works, you'd know that and wouldn't have asked me such an embarrasing question. You are asking the impossible. How very silly of you!

 

2.

Proof of no God.

You've failed to properly define the terms of your question.

God? Which one? Shiva? Odin? Cthulhu? I assume you mean the god of the Bible, but you didn't have the focus and self-discipline to think the question thru properly and to then present it properly. Sloppy work! If you really want to persuade anyone about anything in this forum you can't just wing it and type whatever pops into your head. You've got to have the discipline to think and understand these things before you write.

 

3.

Proof of no God.

Even if I could do the impossible and prove a negative and even if you'd written the question properly Stranger, what would be the point of my presenting you with any kind of proof of.. no God..., as you clumsily put it?

 

The answer is, none at all. There's no point in showing you any kind of proof.

 

You wouldn't recognize a proof if it jumped up and bit you on the butt!

Ditto when it comes to bona fide evidence or authenticated facts. You live in total denial of reality and facts and evidence and proof, so why the hell are you asking me to show you some? You've just asked me to show you something you believe isn't real. Sorry buddy, but I don't have the power to do that. Unlike you, I know what's real and what isn't.

 

You simply can't recognize a fact as a fact. Even if you could, you'd just to choose to deny it as being real. The same applies for evidence and proof. For you, everything is about what you believe, not the real facts. You'll choose your own beliefs over the facts, every time.

How very sad.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

By rights I should quit this thread, having wasted too much time on trying to help you already. But I won't do that. Instead, I'll stay for the sake of folks like Adam5 and anyone else lurking - so that they can clearly see just how hopelessly deluded you really are.

 

BAA.

[Adam5]

By rights I should quit this thread, having wasted too much time on trying to help you already. But I won't do that. Instead, I'll stay for the sake of folks like Adam5 and anyone else lurking - so that they can clearly see just how hopelessly deluded you really are.

 

Hi BAA, I'm enjoying this thread. I liked your reponse to the request to prove no God.

[bornagainathiest]

The rain question? maybe it was raining earlier. Mayby it rained in the Cleveland area but not the city. To many possibilities. Defense lawyers use this tactic for a reason. It eliminates the whole picture and allows you only to c what 1 wants. I will finish up in a minute. About the alian though, there cab be logical assumptions or guesses made about what may be seen, known, or believed. Only very clear cut n paste questions can have absalutes.

 

Oh shuggles!

 

See what I mean folks?

 

I made the question as plain and simple and clear as I could and the Stranger still couldn't wrap his head around it. Here it is again.

 

1.

^{Bob and Joe are in Toledo. Bob believes that it's raining in Cleveland. Bob tells Joe what he believes. Bob doesn't give any objective evidence as to why he believes it's raining there, but he asks Joe to believe him anyway. What should Joe do? Believe Bob without any objective evidence, refuse to believe him, say that the answer can never be known or check it out for himself? Now, if I were Joe I'd make a call and find out. If Joe finds out that it's not raining in Cleveland, is he right not to believe what Bob says? Yes or No.}

^{(Please answer this question, Stranger. Please just say Yes or No. Thanks.)}

 

^{That was an example of where someone's belief can be easily checked against the objective evidence. Do you see how that works?}

^{(Please answer this question. When answering please remember to stick only to what I've written. Please don't stray off the subject and please don't add or take away anything from what I've written. Please just deal only with the question. Thanks. )}

 

You'll see that I asked the Stranger to stick only to what I've written. I asked him not to stray off the subject. I asked him not to add or take away anything from what I've written. I repeated myself and asked him to deal ONLY with the question.

So what does he do?

 

"maybe it was raining earlier."

That's not in the question, buddy. You've just added to the question. I did not mention earlier or later. You don't get to say what the question should be - you just answer what's asked.

 

"Mayby it rained in the Cleveland area but not the city."

That's not in the question, buddy. You've just added to the question. I did not mention the Cleveland area. You don't get to say what the question should be - you just answer what's asked.

 

 

"To many possibilities."

Wrong. If you confine yourself only to the question you will see what the possibilities are. I wrote them out for you. You don't get to say what the question should be - you just answer what's asked.

 

"Defense lawyers use this tactic for a reason. It eliminates the whole picture and allows you only to c what 1 wants."

How many times do I have to say that you don't get to choose what you want? Answering a question properly is not about what the Stranger wants. And btw, lawyers use this tactic because it gets to the facts. This is not wrong or bad or evil - it's called getting down to the facts. The Stranger doesn't have the choice of what the facts are. It's not for him to decide. That's why the Stranger should answer only what's in the question.

 

"About the alian though, there cab be logical assumptions or guesses made about what may be seen, known, or believed. Only very clear cut n paste questions can have absalutes."

Wrong again. Assumptions and guesses are not facts. What may be seen and known and believed are not facts. Only what can be proven can be a fact. Once again Stranger, a belief is not a fact.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please take note and remember that the Stranger simply cannot answer a straight question that's put to him. So there's no point in asking him anything to do with the Bible. In fact, there's no point in asking him anything at all. It's hopeless!

 

He always thinks that he decides what the question should be. So there's no point in asking him anything. All you'll get is more of the above.

 

Oy vey!

Imagine being a lawyer and trying to get straight answers out of him in court!

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

By rights I should quit this thread, having wasted too much time on trying to help you already. But I won't do that. Instead, I'll stay for the sake of folks like Adam5 and anyone else lurking - so that they can clearly see just how hopelessly deluded you really are.

 

Hi BAA, I'm enjoying this thread. I liked your reponse to the request to prove no God.

 

Thanks!

 

I gotta go now. Be back later. C u then?

 

Byeee.

 

BAA.

[Guest Valk0010]

I will give highlighted answeres shortly.

I think I give, not cause your right, cause your dense. Free will do not require evil. And morality in a atheistic universe is irrelevant to this discussion we are discussion the problem. Why does a omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenelovent god allow evil. In fact, there is no biblical evidence at all, that he had to create us, if he couldn't do any better. So yes, it comes out to god being evil if you believe the facts of the bible and the facts of logic. Objective proof there is no god at all. I can't do it. All I can say is there is no good reason to believe in the christian one nor any other. It is becoming pretty apparent to me, not to seem condesending that you really haven't thought that hard about the free will theodicy.

 

Evil if we got a omnipotent god isn't required by our make up. Feeling evil thoughts isn't a requirement to having the ability to choose. You seem to miss the point. The cause of evil is not relevant to the, concept. God could just create us in a different way, he is afterall omnipotent. But lets assume that it is for a second you right and one needs to consider the cause of evil. There are three types of what is most commonly called, free will. Most people if they think about this question usually fall into three catagories. They are, compatibility, determinism, and libertarian free will. Compatibilitism is the view that some aspects of the human existence are predetermined by causality and biology, and there some aspects we can choose on our own without exterior factors. That is the view I normally hold. The second is determinism, which states there is no free will, and causality and biology determines all forms of desicon making. The third, commonly advocated by christians is the idea of libertarian free will, where we can choose everything. Taking it in reverse order here is how free will or one might say, good can exist without evil. Lets say, we are in a candy store, and battery acid, soda, pop tarts and snickers and maybe potato chips are sold. By your reasoning, about how evil is required for free will, if you took away the option of buying the battery acid are free will becomes null and void. Limited selection criteria doesn't doing anything other then limit the selection criteria. Another way you can look at it, is that by your reasoning, about taking away our impulse to do evil, then things like not being able to fly without a airplane are standing violations of our free will. Its just a nonsensical conclusion. Now with compatablism, the question is easy, just create us with the ability to only do certain actions, we have freedom of will within those certain actions. Determinism is a nonstarter because its just a matter of creation. You totally avoided my pre-emption of you saying, ohh evil means calamity. There is a ethical problem also, with the evil so others see the light thedocy.

 

Here is a good example of that. I am one of the few people on here who would know this story. There was a pro wrestling event in 1999, and there was this performer, his name was Owen Hart. He was sent into the top of the building to repel down to the ring. The rigging he was usuing was not designed for someone of his weight. He died from falling. Now there writer of the show was not a christian at the time, his name was vince russo. He later in a interview when asked why he became a christian, and what was better about him being a christian. And he said he could finally not be so eaten up by the guilt of writing that skit into the show at the last minute. He said in fact dealing with that, is one of the things that helped him become a christian. But here is the problem with the, suffering to bring others to the light. A guy died, who was married and had 4 kids and was just trying to make enough money so he could retire and raise a family. Yet to put it bluntly, he died so another person could become a christian. I doubt you would see how morally fucked up that is, but I posit that example, to show how, that turns god into a person with no sense of justice.

 

And remeber, the evil by my standards criticism, is nonsensical, if i am morally correct I am morally correct. And also, assuming that your god existed, I would be using the moral compass he gave me. So come on stranger you can do better then this. This bit about god judging, I could care less, nor is it relevant particularly, unless you want to deny the existence of the arguement from authority fallacy. The god murdering part is the evil part. He did after all say, "Shall not kill."

[Ouroboros]

Ouroborus, do u have a link with pictures of these ape men. It might be neat to take a peak.

Here are some of the skulls we studied in one of my anthropology classes (genus homo and australopithecus).

 

We studied dental arches, postorbital constrictions, foramen magnum, and much more. Basically, forensic analysis of the bones.

 

(Notice the tools they used. I took the photos, btw.)

[the stranger]

Ouroborus, thankyou for the pictures. pretty bizare. I am going to give that area of research another go around with trying to leave off my Jesus glasses next given chance.

Adam 5, I can appreciate ur history. You see, my old church, as loving as some were, it seemed the focus was on the don'ts and the perfect way of living. Guess what, I'm still far from perfect, as all of you can contest. lol I rejected God and ran from Him due to these experiences but God never let go. It was years and years later when I accepted Him back in my life and I from that day have taken a baby step by baby aproach. Yes, I do understand how forms of any religion, including Christianity, can be hurtful. For me, I try to leave the names out of it cause for me it is simply my relationship with Jesus and not about a name of religion. You see, any precieved created picture on my part I tried to tear down. It was certainly Jesus Himself that brought me back to Himself, without being in church. So Adem 5, I di understand in part, and my job is not to judge but just to,let you knoe the Jesus in Whom we both are familier is infact alive and I can never deny this as apart from religion He has made Himself clear to me like, everyday, and I could never bring myself to leave Him again. I look forward to talking with you more.

Cits, I always get a smile when I see your replies. Your a smart and funny man. It may take a bit longer for our healthy debated however due to my circumstances.

Bornagain, Do you teach for a living, cause in small ways, you remind me of my English teacher.

I will try to respond more fully to each a bit later, including you, Zalch, good to read your replies.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ouroborus, thankyou for the pictures. pretty bizare. I am going to give that area of research another go around with trying to leave off my Jesus glasses next given chance.

That's probably the best thing I've read from you... ever. I hope you mean it.

 

If you can, I suggest taking one or two physical anthropology classes at your local community college or university. There are an intense amount of knowledge, facts, and research put into the theory of evolution. It's immensely larger than people in general know. Most of what we know about history and evolution is not guesswork, but thoroughly thought out reasoning based on evidence.

 

You know, it is possible to incorporate the idea of us evolving from apes and yet believe in God's intervention of it. Not that I believe it--at least not in the Christian way--but I know it is possible to do.

[mcdaddy]

This is just a bunch of mental masturbation.

 

Myths, fairy tales, why should any of us believe anything the bible says when it's almost wholly unsupported by science and it's tales are indecipherable from other ancient myths of the time?

 

The bible is a train wreck.

[mcdaddy]

Let me add to that- its tales are STRAIGHT PLAGIARISMS of other myths of the time.

 

Sumerians and Babylonians and Persians should be getting massive royalty checks.