Suffering for the Sins of the World

[Edgarcito]

Just now, walterpthefirst said:

 

Whoever started the personal attacks, this applies to Ed.

 

So why isn't he being obedient to god's commands?

 

Romans 12:17-21

 

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 

18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 

19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 

20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

 

This doesn't mean that you have to be perfect, Edgarcito.  You just have to be better than the Prof.

 

Can you do that?  Can you turn the other cheek, just as Jesus commanded you?

 

 

2-0 Walter, you have deflected from Gen 2 twice now.

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, let's go down the rabbit hole and explore.  That's what everyone's wanting, is it not?  We find what we find.  Tally ho.

 

Nice dodge, Ed.

 

God's Word plainly tells us that god could have kept Satan out of Eden and saved Adam and Eve from harm.

 

But you just won't go there, will you?

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

2-0 Walter, you have deflected from Gen 2 twice now.

 

Nope. 

 

You are dodging the issue I raised earlier in this thread.

 

The issue of god's failure as a loving father to protect his innocent and vulnerable children from harm.

 

Why didn't he do that, Ed?

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Nope. 

 

You are dodging the issue I raised earlier in this thread.

 

The issue of god's failure as a loving father to protect his innocent and vulnerable children from harm.

 

Why didn't he do that, Ed?

I don't know actually.  Speculated years ago that he may have needed a companion equal to himself.  Good question.

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know actually.  Speculated years ago that he may have needed a companion equal to himself.  Good question.

 

You don't know why god failed to protect them.

 

Is that an admission that god had the ability to prevent Adam and Eve from coming to harm, but didn't do it? 

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know actually.  Speculated years ago that he may have needed a companion equal to himself.  Good question.

In retrospect is a decent guess given the church is the bride and that God  hates divorce.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You don't know why god failed to protect them.

 

Is that an admission that god had the ability to prevent Adam and Eve from coming to harm, but didn't do it? 

No it's not, perhaps he was wanting them to become "like us"/eternal and they were unable to control their own nature.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

In retrospect is a decent guess given the church is the bride and that God  hates divorce.

 

Now please answer the question I just put to you, Ed.

 

Is that an admission that god had the ability to prevent Adam and Eve from coming to harm, but didn't do it? 

 

Ignore please.

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

No it's not, perhaps he was wanting them to become "like us"/eternal and they were unable to control their own nature.

 

 

That won't wash, Ed.

 

They were created pure and innocent, but their natures were corrupted by Satan.

 

Which god could have prevented.

 

So, who's fault is it that they were corrupted?

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

That won't wash, Ed.

 

They were created pure and innocent, but their natures were corrupted by Satan.

 

Which god could have prevented.

 

So, who's fault is it that they were corrupted?

Equal to himself Walter.  He had to grant them temporary freedom from their subjectivity and they failed.  He allowed them to choose eternal or finite.  They chose finite.  Why would he want something he controls as a partner, an equal?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

39 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'd like to explore the verse in Gen 2.  God gave them freedom to eat/consume.  What do you think Walter about this.

 

From one side argued, we have God's omniscience.  Which would mean he knows the end result, even per my finite absolute theory. He would know where and what I was before I was and where I am, and where I will wind up given no deviation from his omniscience.  But, when he gave freedom, what is freedom from an absolute? Is it something outside of his absolute granted to something by himself?

 

19 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm trying to explore the question you keep saying I am deflecting and I'm already up 1-0 on Walter's deflecting.  And you won't keep describing how big your dick is long enough to respond.  

 

Answer or speculate on what I have written.

It looks to me like you're more concerned about yourself than 10-year-old sex slaves.  Perhaps you should consider that.  And respond to the points we've made before you insist we entertain your word-salad philosophy. 

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

Equal to himself Walter.  He had to grant them temporary freedom from their subjectivity and they failed.  He allowed them to choose eternal or finite.  They chose finite.  Why would he want something he controls as a partner, an equal?

 

Their ability to freely choose between the eternal and the finite was taken from them when they were corrupted by Satan.

 

Which god could have prevented.

 

So, who's fault is it that they were corrupted?

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Their ability to freely choose between the eternal and the finite was taken from them when they were corrupted by Satan.

 

Which god could have prevented.

 

So, who's fault is it that they were corrupted?

No, the verse says freely.

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

It looks to me like you're more concerned about yourself than 10-year-old sex slaves.  Perhaps you should consider that.  And respond to the points we've made before you insist we entertain your word-salad philosophy. 

You keep insisting you are correct in your conclusion but won't join in.  I'm specifically dealing with the point you say I'm incorrect and you won't join the discussion. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

28 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

The issue of god's failure as a loving father to protect his innocent and vulnerable children from harm.

 

Why didn't he do that, Ed?

 

25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I don't know actually.  Speculated 

And that, right there, is the rub, Ed.  You "don't" know, so you speculate.

 

Except that you do know.  Because we've already been over the things we do know:

 

1. Evil does exist

2. An all-powerful god would have the ability to prevent evil

3. An all-loving god would have the willingness to prevent evil

4. So because evil exists, we know that a god who is both all-powerful and all-loving can not exist.

 

But you don't want to admit that.  It's not that you "don't know"; it is that you are not willing to admit what you do know.  So, you want to keep speculating in the hopes that someday you can reconcile child sex trafficking with the idea of a loving god.  The problem is that, as I've already mentioned, philosophers and theologians have been trying to do just that for millennia, and they have failed miserably.  Do you really believe you're going to succeed where smarter men than you have failed?  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Ya know the Catholic church has been in the child sex trade for years. I'm sure there are a few priests that would deem it a Holy act. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You keep insisting you are correct in your conclusion but won't join in.  I'm specifically dealing with the point you say I'm incorrect and you won't join the discussion. 

You keep insisting that child sex slavery is good; but have yet to justify such a stance.  Until you do, you have no right to insist I join in your little Adam and Eve diversion, Ed.  Because that is all this is.  It's nothing more than a distraction and a misdirection away from the difficult questions you can not answer.  NO.  I already told you that changing the subject is not going to absolve your god of the evil he has committed.  Moreover, I've already answered this question yesterday.  No matter what "free will" we have, it is finite.  But god's free will is infinite.  So, whether Adam and Eve were really free, or deceived, or truly innocent, or corrupted--not a god damn bit of that matters.  Because god still made the decision to plant the tree, having already predetermined exactly how many little girls were going to be raped as a result.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, Ed, unless you want to argue that god did not choose to plant the tree, then this whole discussion about Adam and Eve is completely meaningess; and the final responsibility, and blame, rests entirely on god's shoulders.  Because god is evil and there is no defense for it.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, the verse says freely.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

They were free to choose as he made them - pure and innocent.  They were not free after they were tempted and corrupted because then they were enslaved to sin.  Scripture confirms this.

 

1 Timothy 2 : 14 

 

14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

 

See that?

Satan corrupted Eve and then she disobeyed god's command not to eat the fruit.  So, she was not able to freely choose once Satan had tempted her.  She was enslaved to sin by the Prince of Lies.

 

People who are enslaved cannot make free choices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[alreadyGone]

The very concept of "original sin" is absurd.

We are given to believe that an omnipotent God created an entire universe, including every living creature on earth, from nothing.

 

Then he created man and woman, knowing their exact nature and capability, and presented to them temptation greater than they had the capacity to resist.

 

Would God not have known from the beginning what choice they would make?

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, Ed, unless you want to argue that god did not choose to plant the tree, the final responsibility, and blame, rests entirely on god's shoulders.  Because god is evil and there is no defense for it.

Do you have reading comprehension difficulty?  I just finished telling Walter that God gave them freedom to eat, freedom to consume from the trees that he put there.  We are asking now the scope of "freedom".  Try and stay up.

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

The very concept of "original sin" is absurd.

We are given to believe that an omnipotent God created an entire universe, including every living creature on earth, from nothing.

 

Then he created man and woman, knowing their exact nature and capability, and presented to them temptation greater than they had the capacity to resist.

 

Would God not have known from the beginning what choice they would make?

That's not right...we still have the capacity to resist.

[Edgarcito]

14 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

They were free to choose as he made them - pure and innocent.  They were not free after they were tempted and corrupted because then they were enslaved to sin.  Scripture confirms this.

 

1 Timothy 2 : 14 

 

14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

 

See that?

Satan corrupted Eve and then she disobeyed god's command not to eat the fruit.  So, she was not able to freely choose once Satan had tempted her.  She was enslaved to sin by the Prince of Lies.

 

People who are enslaved cannot make free choices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I need to stop a bit Walter, I have a good bit of work to achieve yet today.  Thx.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Do you have reading comprehension difficulty?  I just finished telling Walter that God gave them freedom to eat, freedom to consume from the trees that he put there.  We are asking now the scope of "freedom".  Try and stay up.

Is god omniscient?  If he is, then the question of their "freedom" is as meaningless as the rest of your diversionary bullshit.  Because if god is omniscient, then he already knew beforehand, and had already predetermined beforehand, exactly what they were going to do.  Do you have reading comprehension difficulty, Ed?  Because we already covered all of this yesterday.  Try and stay up.  

[alreadyGone]

43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

That's not right...we still have the capacity to resist.

 

My mistake, I meant to reference Adam and Eve specifically.

Clearly, they lacked the capacity to resist the specific temptation that God placed before them.

 

He created them. He knew their nature.

Now he blames us for our nature.