100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > cuzimwhiteboy
|
Topic:
Free will ?????
|
|
TO Creative:
Have you read anything on "compatibilism"? Just curious. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Re-Creation?
|
|
Damn, Redy. Are you keeping files on me, too?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wait a sec. You want advice on how to manipulate a situation, or someone into falling for you? You don't see anything unscrupulous about that? Sorry, but it sounds like he's not that into you. Ever hear of people "hedging their bets" when dating? Maybe you should step back from the situation, and ask a trusted friend for his/her opinion on this. No offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Read any good books lately?
|
|
The Paperback Apocalypse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing in Return--Down
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Cloverfield
|
|
Oh, and I thought it was the Biggest Douche in the Universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
read a good book...okay...watch porn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A tree and it's fruit...
|
|
Can you recognize me? I'm the one with twig and berries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A moral ethical God?
Edited by
cuzimwhiteboy
on
Wed 01/09/08 03:24 PM
|
|
TO Abra:
I'll tackle the "God is all-powerful" claim you made. You wrote: Does this mean that God can do anything at all? No. It simply means that God can do anything that is possible within the limitations of God power. Just because God is all the power that exists, doesn’t mean that God can do just anything. God is all-powerful in that God can do whatever God can do. And if God can’t do it, then it can’t be done. So it’s not like doable things are out of God’s reach. If God can’t do them, they just aren’t doable to begin with. My opinion: If I'm reading your argument correctly, God is "all-powerful" cuz it can do anything that is logically consistent with its nature whatever that may be. For the sake of argument, let's say there exists a supernatural being that is completely powerless or non-potent. Since this entity can do anything that is logically consistent with its nature, i.e. absolutely nothing, it too is by definition "all-powerful." It's God as well?!? Taken to its logical conclusion, the whole argument breaks down. 
Please correct me if I mischaracterized your argument. Hope you had a good new year. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Original sin... explained...
|
|
Let me explain this a little more clearly,… Imagine that men wrote the Bible and made up the story It’s told as is. It talks about a tree with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and if they eat of the this magical fruit they will suddenly and mysteriously be bestowed with the knowledge of good and evil. And this is precisely what happened. As soon as they ate of the fruit of the tree they knew that they were naked and they were sore afraid. A typical manmade fairytale. (sorry if that offends anyone, I’m just saying what it sounds like.) Now imagine the book was really divinely inspired and is the words of a real God Then the same scenario would have been told “correctly”. Adam and Even knew the difference between good and evil, and the Lord God gave them one commandment that they shall not eat the fruit of his perfect tree. Adam and Eve knowingly disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. The Lord God then came to them and said, “You have disobeyed me, and because of this now I will make many rules which you must not break. Conclusion The first story is a concoction of men who screwed up the fairytale and didn't get it right. Bad screenwriters. The second story rings with clear unambiguous "truth". If a genuinely all-knowing perfect God had written the Bible and preserved every word perfectly over all these millennia, then it would make perfect sense. But this is not the case. Also, if we allow that maybe the story did start out perfect but then deteriorated over time,… well, all that’s saying is that it’s time for God to get down here and publish a new version because the old one is all screwed up! The difference here is that you are interpreting the eating of the fruit as "evil", and I'm seeing it as "wrong". Therefore your premise isn't doing it for me to explasin the logic of your original post. It's "rabbit logic". TO Eljay: We might have a different definition of "good and evil" but I didn't interpret his posts in that way. I saw his argument like this: The DECISION to do what is "evil" unto God, i.e. to disobey him which is the "wrong" choice in this instance, presumes that, in order to base a moral decision, one has the necessary knowledge in which to first distinguish good from evil. Adam and Eve did not possess this faculty since they had not eaten from the tree yet. The paradox continues.
I'll let Abra defend his position, but I thought I'd give you my take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A moral ethical God?
|
|
I have to go but Im not familiar with the countless tales of virgin birth that predates Jesus. Please enlighten me. http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html Damn you, Abra! I wrote my email for nothing.  J/K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
A moral ethical God?
|
|
I have to go but Im not familiar with the countless tales of virgin birth that predates Jesus. Please enlighten me. Please point out the specific myths cristianity is copying, please dont utilize dogma or anything thats was changed to get converts, specifically during Roman tims. I am asking for myths that copy the generic version of Christianity, the virgin birth and creationism. What I was saying before that wasnt clear was, just becasue one thing was written before something else was written doesnt mean the one that was written about first happened first. My apologies to Creative for getting off topic.
Steve, No one wants to do your homework for you, but here are few names to google. I'm not saying all the virgin birth narratives surrounding these mythical (some historical) figures predate Christianity, but it'll give you some ideas. Here's what I recall: Amenkept Horus Hathor Apis Ra Attis Dionysis Jason (son of Persephone) Perseus Adonis Mithra Romulus Remus Plato Pythagoras Gautama Alexander the Great Throw in some Caesars... Again, sorry for the interruption, Creative. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is 'faith' a gift?
|
|
TO Creative:
Nonetheless, it's been a fun topic. Thanks for the good discussion. Much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is 'faith' a gift?
|
|
TO Creative:
I think your position is that faith doesn't necessarily require belief, but only requires acceptance without question. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I think belief precedes faith and trust, and is essential to both concepts. When people says they believe A, they're really saying that they accept A as the truth. If I provide sufficient evidence to refute A, or if no one provides the necessary evidence to justify A, then holding that belief is faith. However, if people say they believe B not A, then they're saying B to be the truth. If there isn't sufficient evidence to refute B, or someone provides the necessary evidence to justify B, then holding that belief is trust. That's my position. I'm open to debate...er...discussion.
Please clear up your definition of "reason" for this discussion. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
grammy turns 21 this year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kissin don't last but cookin do. / The way to a man's heart is through his stomach.
Kat Ahhh, but through the chest is quicker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
2012 End of World?
|
|
Isn't that when the Mayan calendar ends, and therefore people think it means the end of the world?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is 'faith' a gift?
|
|
Thanks whiteboy: Actually faith does not necessarily require belief in the religious sense... it only requires acceptance without question... in any sense. " Faith implies complete unquestioning acceptance even in the absence of proof and especially of something not supported by reason." The above is word for word for my Websters collegiate, when comparing the differences of belief, faith, and trust. I posted a near complete verbatim earlier, perhaps you may have missed it...? Unfortunately, I think we'll just end up quibbling over semantics--no offense to Webster. It's probably best that I bow out of the debate for now. Good luck with your arguments. I'll check back to see how things develop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Is 'faith' a gift?
|
|
TO Creative
I enjoy your posts.
We might have to agree to disagree cuz I think faith and trust are what are being confused. Both concepts imply belief. Keep up the interesting posts though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 for effort
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
