100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Thu 08/07/08 04:19 PM
|
|
Sure - as soon as you or spider provide the same as to omniscient or omnipotent being ""limited by contradiction"" - "outside of monotheistic thought", ok? try websters or E. Britannica first then you can slowly work your way down to goodhouse keeping. I find it very interesting that so many non-Christians make insulting and condescending remarks like this one, but it's the Christians who get called on their bad behavior. It truly is a miracle that Christians here aren't losing their tempers left and right. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. From what I read, this article is very well written and comprehensive. Hopefully, we can agree that this is the definition of Omnipotence that Christians use when they call God Omnipotent.   thats just my sarcastic sense of humor spider love it or hate it - it's just me  oh c'mon spidy, your being held to a higher standard than the lost after all right? you all should be used to persecution by now right? it's part of your martyr syndrome, jesus complex. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 08/07/08 03:59 PM
|
|
"I find it very interesting that so many non-Christians make insulting and condescending remarks like this one, but it's the Christians who get called on their bad behavior. It truly is a miracle that Christians here aren't losing their tempers left and right."
Are you kidding spider? FC lady has not lost her temper once? She hasn't name called either? I beg to differ. You often become emotional because you cling to these faith based beliefs out of necessity. For someone who is no-Christian, what does it matter. I merely produce me evidence and you do with it what you will. No need to lose your cool. Scroll up and look at some of what she has said to non-Christians. Its shameful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. From what I read, this article is very well written and comprehensive. Hopefully, we can agree that this is the definition of Omnipotence that Christians use when they call God Omnipotent. thats just my sarcastic sense of humoe spider love it or hate it - it's just me Tribo, according to them we are insulting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I find it very interesting that so many non-Christians make insulting and condescending remarks like this one, but it's the Christians who get called on their bad behavior. It truly is a miracle that Christians here aren't losing their tempers left and right." Are you kidding spider? FC lady has not lost her temper once? She hasn't name called either? I beg to differ. You often become emotional because you cling to these faith based beliefs out of necessity. Scroll up and look at some of what she has said to non-Christians. Its shameful. Yes, you are calling her on her bad behavior. Thank you for proving my point. Comments like Tribos and yours ("thinking people") and so many others are often ignored by Christians. The only point I was making there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However Abra - Jeannie's reference to God being "too busy" is pulling Him into the time continuum. It would take God but a blink of an eye to know every sin that everyone who ever walked on this earth had ever, is, or will ever commit. Else we're redefining omniscience here. Which it seems like is happening anyway. Does anyone here know what omniscience mean -who could share it with the rest of us - because no one is agreeing on what it means. Where's Creative! Funches? Anyone got a definition here? From my point of view, in order for God to truly be omniscient God would need to be everywhere and everything at once. He would need to experience everything that we experience. That can only lead to pantheism as far as I'm concerned. Only pantheism offers a truly omniscient picture of god. The biblical picture of God genuinely doesn't loan itself to the idea of a truly omniscient God. The biblical picture of God is a picture of a God that is separate and distinct from its creation. That's not an omniscient God. I personally hold that it's an oxymoron to even suggest that the biblical stories convey the idea of a truly omniscient God. The biblical God would need to have a presence in hell to be truly omniscient. But hell is supposed to be separation from God. The whole biblical picture is a "have your cake and eat it too" picture. It's just yet another contradiction. They want God to be omniscient but they demand that it's possible to be separated from God thus blowing away the very idea that God is omniscient. Omniscience means to know all information, not experience all information. God knows that what you are experiencing, God doesn't experience it with you. so are you saying then that god is not - "omniexpieriencial in nature"? are you not then limiting once again god's omni nature? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dragoness wrote: I have found quite the opposite to be true. The people who read the bible with an open mind, not believing or being told it is a revered text, tend to not believe it. It is a book of stories of old, that is what their conclusion is usually. If told before hand that it is " the word of god" they are usually less likely to read it objectively. Absolutely. The idea that people are knowingly rejecting God because they have less than good intentions is utterly absurd. If there was any truth to the biblical God whatsoever, then we wouldn't have all these really nice people doubting the Bible. If there was any truth to the idea that the Bible is the word of God then every good-natured person who ever read the Bible would have been led by the Holy Spirit to understand it perfectly. The very accustation that people who don't believe in the Bible are somehow turning against God is total hogwash and an utter insult to all the good-natured loving people who have indeed read the Bible and got nothing out of it. Clearly it can't be true. The biblical God, and the Holy Spirit, would need to be purposefully blinding countless numbers of good-natured people who have sought to find righteousness through this book and found it to be utterly nonsensical. The very accusation that there is something wrong with the people who don't believe in the book is a personal judgment of their character. Yet ironically this is precisely what the God in the book supposedly asked people not to do. Christianity causes people to become judgmental of others, in particular of people who don't believe in the New Testament. For this reason it is an unhealthy belief system for humanity as a whole. It can only lead to pitting man againt man. And we know that it does this. The whole Middle East crisis is all based on religious intolerance that has stemmed from the same folklore, from supposedly the same fundamental God. Any omniscient intervening God who would sit back and watch his children arguing amongst themselves because they are all confused about who their father is and what their father wants from them, would clearly not be a good fatherly figure at all. It can't possible be true. The biblical God would be a horrible father to humanity if he were to allow that to continue. It's makes no sense to have a judgmental God who allows people to be unintentionally mislead. If we are to be held accountable for out so-called disobedience then we must be given the proper laws without any ambiguity whatsoever. Yet, clearly that can't be the case if only the Christian Bible is the only true word of God. It can't possibly be true. Period. It flies in the face of a righteous God. No righteous God would allow people to be arguing amongst themselves about what they think he might have meant. No truly all-wise, omniscient intervening God would have allowed his very own doctrines to have split into four major religions, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam. Not to mention all of the various sects of each of those. A heavenly father would not permit his word to become so corrupt. Clearly it has no validity at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Thu 08/07/08 04:00 PM
|
|
A few thoughts on God's creation & the confusion about was it good or not...
God said it WAS good. God loved humanity most of all because we are made in His image. The fall of man was not about us as much as it was about satan's fall from grace with God. It's also about God wanting us to love Him FREELY. For as many as would believe in Him would become the children of God. Choice...it's all about choice. I would hope that many here would start to agree with God as easily as they are swayed by the things of this world. See? It's not so black & white as to say...was it good or not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Her comments are what they are Spider. I have chosen to ignore it. I see it as a diversionary tactic used when you can’t actually debate a topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thats just my sarcastic sense of humoe spider love it or hate it - it's just me You know, I used to make sarcastic remarks also. You were first in line to read my the riot act when I did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so are you saying then that god is not - "omniexpieriencial in nature"? are you not then limiting once again god's omni nature? I laughed when I read this. But in case this wasn't intended as a joke... There is nothing in the Bible that claims God is "omniexpieriencial in nature". I have never even heard the term used. It's disturbing to me to imagine that God experiences everything that humans experience. That would mean God could experience lust and hate and pain and fear... No, the Bible teaches that God knows all things, not experiences all things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. From what I read, this article is very well written and comprehensive. Hopefully, we can agree that this is the definition of Omnipotence that Christians use when they call God Omnipotent. thats just my sarcastic sense of humor spider, love it or hate it - it's just me Tribo, according to them we are insulting. well i must admit your getting better spidy, but you have to remeber - your called to a higher standard than us pagan phillistines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Her comments are what they are Spider. I have chosen to ignore it. I see it as a diversionary tactic used when you can’t actually debate a topic. Oftentimes, it can be the result of frustration, when the person you are debating with refuses to see reason and the "judges" make unfair rulings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well i must admit your getting better spidy, but you have to remeber - your called to a higher standard than us pagan phillistines. It stands to reason that even a "pagan phillistine" is capable of being polite and fair, but chooses to not be. Just as a Christian does when he or she is less than polite or fair. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thats just my sarcastic sense of humoe spider love it or hate it - it's just me You know, I used to make sarcastic remarks also. You were first in line to read my the riot act when I did. The difference spider is you insult and clearly have an agenda with your hurtful comments. You are attempting to divert the debate away from your inability to successfully rebut. That is clearly not the same as Tribo making a little joke (often at are own expense we do this) We do not have a responsibility to explain each and every time we throw in a sarcastic remark. Jesus... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's all fine and well. Now - could you define omniscient. A definition doesn't need your opinion. As a matter of fact - it should have nothing to do with your opinion. All words ulimately come down to personal opinions. Words aren't absolutes. Even dictionaries are nothing more than the opinions of the people who published them. All dictionaries are not in verbatim agreement. And most dictionaries will give multiple options for the meanings of words. Words are nothing more than vehicles of information. If you want to know what a particular word actually means you need to ask the person who used that word what they meant by it. In the case of the Bible that's clearly impossible. Not to mention the fact that it has been translated and transcribed so many times that the words we read today in English are a far cry from what the original authors may have had in mind. When arguments are reduced to semantics it's time for the supposedly intervening heavenly father to step in and correct them. If you and I need to argue about what our creator is like, then it's prefectly clear that neither of us know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Thu 08/07/08 04:12 PM
|
|
Her comments are what they are Spider. I have chosen to ignore it. I see it as a diversionary tactic used when you can’t actually debate a topic. No...you're attempting to stay on your game & that would require you to ignore others instead of engaging. We get it. LOL Let's see...self proclaimed debator...moderator.... judge & mind reader...anything else? LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few thoughts on God's creation & the confusion about was it good or not... God said it WAS good. God loved humanity most of all because we are made in His image. The fall of man was not about us as much as it was about satan's fall from grace with God. It's also about God wanting us to love Him FREELY. For as many as would believe in Him would become the children of God. Choice...it's all about choice. I would hope that many here would start to agree with God as easily as they are swayed by the things of this world. See? It's not so black & white as to say...was it good or not? QS: A few thoughts on God's creation & the confusion about was it good or not... God said it WAS good. tribo: ""was"" just leads us back to why god did not make it so it would "always be good" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 08/07/08 04:12 PM
|
|
Her comments are what they are Spider. I have chosen to ignore it. I see it as a diversionary tactic used when you can’t actually debate a topic. Oftentimes, it can be the result of frustration, when the person you are debating with refuses to see reason and the "judges" make unfair rulings. No unfair rulings have been made. You lost to Abra fair and square. If you never lost your temper during the course of that debate, as you claim, then you only lost due to your own argument not being as persuasive or as swift moving as his. Abra has a very interesting flow to his comments, you not so much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thats just my sarcastic sense of humoe spider love it or hate it - it's just me You know, I used to make sarcastic remarks also. You were first in line to read my the riot act when I did. The difference spider is you insult and clearly have an agenda with your hurtful comments. You are attempting to divert the debate away from your inability to successfully rebut. That is clearly not the same as Tribo making a little joke (often at are own expense we do this) We do not have a responsibility to explain each and every time we throw in a sarcastic remark. Jesus... So now you're a mind reader too. LOL Um... nothing wrong with banter... or do you expect some to have their hands tied behind their backs & blindfolded too??? Besides...your defense of abra not having proof of his own shows you have no credibility as a self proclaimed moderator. Just sayin'... I think you need to check your partiality at the door if you want to lord it over the rest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Thu 08/07/08 04:15 PM
|
|
thats just my sarcastic sense of humoe spider love it or hate it - it's just me You know, I used to make sarcastic remarks also. You were first in line to read my the riot act when I did. The difference spider is you insult and clearly have an agenda with your hurtful comments. You are attempting to divert the debate away from your inability to successfully rebut. That is clearly not the same as Tribo making a little joke (often at are own expense we do this) We do not have a responsibility to explain each and every time we throw in a sarcastic remark. Jesus... I haven't made any insulting remarks, used sarcasm or lost my temper in this thread. I feel that it would be appropriate for you to judge my arguments in this thread by what is actually posted in this thread instead of coming up with excuses to ignore my arguments. EDIT: When I have made hurtful comments, the purpose was to hurt and embarrass the victim. The same purpose for which all hurtful comments are made. |
|
|
|
|
