The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on March 07, 2008, 03:08:46 AM
-
Q: What does that look like for you, and how do you feed that personal relationship with God? Some people talk about prayer, talking to God. Some talk about reading the Bible and experiencing God that way. What does that look like for you?
Senator Clinton: It has looked like the connection that I felt like I made as a child but just kept growing and was always present in my life. I believe in the father, son, and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth. I pray, I read the Bible, I read commentary on scriptures, I read other people’s faith journeys. That is, for me, at the real core of how I keep feeding my faith. And, I was lucky because, as I said at the faith and politics event, I was taught to pray and I inculcate it as a habit in my daily life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/politics/07clinton-text.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
I await the standard liberal responses re; religion.
-
Q: What does that look like for you, and how do you feed that personal relationship with God? Some people talk about prayer, talking to God. Some talk about reading the Bible and experiencing God that way. What does that look like for you?
Senator Clinton: It has looked like the connection that I felt like I made as a child but just kept growing and was always present in my life. I believe in the father, son, and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth. I pray, I read the Bible, I read commentary on scriptures, I read other people’s faith journeys. That is, for me, at the real core of how I keep feeding my faith. And, I was lucky because, as I said at the faith and politics event, I was taught to pray and I inculcate it as a habit in my daily life.
In the words of Jesus "...by their fruits you shall know them."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/politics/07clinton-text.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
I await the standard liberal responses re; religion.
-
Q: What does that look like for you, and how do you feed that personal relationship with God? Some people talk about prayer, talking to God. Some talk about reading the Bible and experiencing God that way. What does that look like for you?
Senator Clinton: It has looked like the connection that I felt like I made as a child but just kept growing and was always present in my life. I believe in the father, son, and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth. I pray, I read the Bible, I read commentary on scriptures, I read other people’s faith journeys. That is, for me, at the real core of how I keep feeding my faith. And, I was lucky because, as I said at the faith and politics event, I was taught to pray and I inculcate it as a habit in my daily life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/politics/07clinton-text.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
I await the standard liberal responses re; religion.
As a secularist, I have no qualms about voting for a person of faith. The kinds of politicans who make me nervous are politicians like Mike Huckabee- candidates who think they can interpret events as being the work of God and who act on the basis of what they imagine God tells them to do.
-
Q: What does that look like for you, and how do you feed that personal relationship with God? Some people talk about prayer, talking to God. Some talk about reading the Bible and experiencing God that way. What does that look like for you?
Senator Clinton: It has looked like the connection that I felt like I made as a child but just kept growing and was always present in my life. I believe in the father, son, and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth. I pray, I read the Bible, I read commentary on scriptures, I read other people’s faith journeys. That is, for me, at the real core of how I keep feeding my faith. And, I was lucky because, as I said at the faith and politics event, I was taught to pray and I inculcate it as a habit in my daily life.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/politics/07clinton-text.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
I await the standard liberal responses re; religion.
As a secularist, I have no qualms about voting for a person of faith. The kinds of politicans who make me nervous are politicians like Mike Huckabee- candidates who think they can interpret events as being the work of God and who act on the basis of what they imagine God tells them to do.
Interesting answer...you have no qualms voting for a person of faith, as long as they don't really trust God. :lmao:
-
Interesting answer...you have no qualms voting for a person of faith, as long as they don't really trust God. :lmao:
I'll get TNO some ice for the swelling.
-
Interesting answer...you have no qualms voting for a person of faith, as long as they don't really trust God. :lmao:
I don't have a problem with people putting their trust in a deity and or even in the idea that events are happening according to some divine plan, but I think that people are fooling themselves when they start believing that they can know what God is thinking or doing.
When Mike Huckabee started doing really well in the presidential race, he loudly proclaimed his success to be the will of God. When Mike Huckabee started losing, he apparently lost his desire to attribute events to the will of God. Why hasn't Huckabee proclaimed his loss to be the will of God? Because he arrogantly believes that he can know which events are the will of God and which aren't.
Here is an interesting exercise I tried at NU...
A man appears before you out of thin air and claims to be God. The man tells you to kill the next person you see wearing red shoes. What do you do?
-
Interesting answer...you have no qualms voting for a person of faith, as long as they don't really trust God. :lmao:
I don't have a problem with people putting their trust in a deity and or even in the idea that events are happening according to some divine plan, but I think that people are fooling themselves when they start believing that they can know what God is thinking or doing.
When Mike Huckabee started doing really well in the presidential race, he loudly proclaimed his success to be the will of God. When Mike Huckabee started losing, he apparently lost his desire to attribute events to the will of God. Why hasn't Huckabee proclaimed his loss to be the will of God?
Here is an interesting exercise I tried at NU...
A man appears before you out of thin air and claims to be God. The man tells you to kill the next person you see wearing red shoes. What do you do?
What you don't understand is that through prayer, giving thanks, good deeds, acting according to God's laws... you will come to know Him and by extension know counterfeits. You really don't understand the spiritual journey, it is not passive, but it is the daily active expression of faith.
-
What you don't understand is that through prayer, giving thanks, good deeds, acting according to God's laws... you will come to know Him and by extension know counterfeits. You really don't understand the spiritual journey, it is not passive, but it is the daily active expression of faith.
No, TNO doesn't understand faith and spirituality, but that doesn't stop him from feeling superior to people of faith.
-
What you don't understand is that through prayer, giving thanks, good deeds, acting according to God's laws... you will come to know Him and by extension know counterfeits. You really don't understand the spiritual journey, it is not passive, but it is the daily active expression of faith.
No, TNO doesn't understand faith and spirituality, but that doesn't stop him from feeling superior to people of faith.
I'll pray for him. It's a fundie's secret weapon.
-
What you don't understand is that through prayer, giving thanks, good deeds, acting according to God's laws... you will come to know Him and by extension know counterfeits. You really don't understand the spiritual journey, it is not passive, but it is the daily active expression of faith.
So, people who pray, give thanks, perform good deeds, and act according to God's laws can have an infallible sense of what God wants? I don't think so.
Trusting in God is one thing. Trusting in mankind's ability to divine what God wants is quite another. One would have to be perfect to have a perfect sense of what God is or what God wants.
-
I'll pray for him. It's a fundie's secret weapon.
If you're going to pray for me, could you ask God to send some money my way so I can buy some of the frivolous things I want right now? I promise that should a windfall of money come my way, I will give half of it to charity. Plus, a windfall of money which seems to come as a result of prayers might make me more inclined to believe in God. Everyone wins.
-
What you don't understand is that through prayer, giving thanks, good deeds, acting according to God's laws... you will come to know Him and by extension know counterfeits. You really don't understand the spiritual journey, it is not passive, but it is the daily active expression of faith.
So, people who pray, give thanks, perform good deeds, and act according to God's laws can have an infallible sense of what God wants? I don't think so.
Trusting in God is one thing. Trusting in mankind's ability to divine what God wants is quite another. One would have to be perfect to have a perfect sense of what God is or what God wants.
And people who do not do the above have a better chance of knowing God? I don't think so.
You are a walking contradiction Night Owl. I can't tell if you deny the existence of God or you spite Him.
-
I'll pray for him. It's a fundie's secret weapon.
If you're going to pray for me, could you ask God to send some money my way so I can buy some of the frivolous things I want right now? I promise that should a windfall of money come my way, I will give half of it to charity. Plus, a windfall of money which seems to come as a result of prayers might make me more inclined to believe in God. Everyone wins.
Ok, now you are just being an ignoramus. Intentionally or unintentionally, I have no idea.
-
And people who do not do the above have a better chance of knowing God? I don't think so.
You are a walking contradiction Night Owl. I can't tell if you deny the existence of God or you spite Him.
I am about as nearly certain that God does not exist as one can be.
-
And people who do not do the above have a better chance of knowing God? I don't think so.
You are a walking contradiction Night Owl. I can't tell if you deny the existence of God or you spite Him.
I am about as nearly certain that God does not exist as one can be.
Why do you smite that which does not exist?
-
Ok, now you are just being an ignoramus. Intentionally or unintentionally, I have no idea.
As long as I'm not greedy, what is wrong about asking God for money?
-
Ok, now you are just being an ignoramus. Intentionally or unintentionally, I have no idea.
As long as I'm not greedy, what is wrong about asking God for money?
By your own admission, it would be pointless. Help me understand where you're headed with this and I'll decide if it is worth my time. :-)
-
Ok, now you are just being an ignoramus. Intentionally or unintentionally, I have no idea.
As long as I'm not greedy, what is wrong about asking God for money?
You're worse.
You're a hypocrite. You deny God on evidentiary grounds yet all you do is spout moralisms.
Please show me the empirical proofs for moralist statements.
-
Ok, now you are just being an ignoramus. Intentionally or unintentionally, I have no idea.
As long as I'm not greedy, what is wrong about asking God for money?
You're worse.
You're a hypocrite. You deny God on evidentiary grounds yet all you do is spout moralisms.
Please show me the empirical proofs for moralist statements.
Exactly, it would be difficult for him to delineate an argument for human rights without referencing God. Near impossible I'd say.
-
Exactly, it would be difficult for him to delineate an argument for human rights without referencing God. Near impossible I'd say.
To be sure, many an atheist will claim the ability to ACT morally, and in this they would be correct; but what they lack is the ability to BE moral.
To be like a thing requires the ability to apprehend what the thing.
However, I am as yet unaware of any telemetric reading, quantum observation or mathematical formula that can ascertain and describe that which is moral. Absent all empirical reference to the moral the moralizing atheist can only project his subjective musings about what "ought" and "ought not" be.
It does no good to claim, "humanity ought to do that which allows itself to propogate" based on some bizarre deference to Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest because the first thing Darwinian theory teaches us is that nothing ought to be anything, it merely is. Life is unplanned, unmourned and unjustified and uncompensated. Worse, the faux-atheist will further bastardize his mistake by expounding, "such propogation requires orderly society as man is a social being therefore man ought to enjoy social equality."
Piffle!
I would love to see the empirical refutation of, "socializing is a genetic trait, ergo as only propogative traits descend from genetics those humans which lack sufficient genetic qualities to propogate should be weeded from the gene pool."
-
I believe Elvis has left the building snugs.... you are amazing though, I love reading you. What the heck, I love you but you already knew that. :-*
-
I believe Elvis has left the building snugs....
The young, thin Elvis or the fat, druggd-out Elvis?
you are amazing though, I love reading you. What the heck, I love you but you already knew that. :-*
And it warms the cockles of my heart...big, throbbing heart cockles.
-
Interesting answer...you have no qualms voting for a person of faith, as long as they don't really trust God. :lmao:
I don't have a problem with people putting their trust in a deity and or even in the idea that events are happening according to some divine plan, but I think that people are fooling themselves when they start believing that they can know what God is thinking or doing.
When Mike Huckabee started doing really well in the presidential race, he loudly proclaimed his success to be the will of God. When Mike Huckabee started losing, he apparently lost his desire to attribute events to the will of God. Why hasn't Huckabee proclaimed his loss to be the will of God? Because he arrogantly believes that he can know which events are the will of God and which aren't.
Here is an interesting exercise I tried at NU...
A man appears before you out of thin air and claims to be God. The man tells you to kill the next person you see wearing red shoes. What do you do?
Not all things that happen are what God would choose, or else we would have no free will. However, everything God wills and everything He allows will work together for the good of those who love Him. Just how they all work together may not be obvious to us, but that doesn't change the outcome.
As for your question...God has said that none can see Him and live, so a man claiming to be God would be obviously false, regardless of how he arrived in front of me, or else I'd be dead.
-
A man appears before you out of thin air and claims to be God. The man tells you to kill the next person you see wearing red shoes. What do you do?
Seeing as "even the Devil appears of an angel of light" you would weigh the decision against your God-given sense of morality at which point you would reason that a god of justice would never seek the arbitrary murder of an innocent person or order the execution of a guilty person without establishing a moral context; ergo the man claiming to be God is only a devil or a charlaton to be rebuked.
Welcome to Failville. Population: you.
-
Why do you smite that which does not exist?
I have a theory about militant atheists. They rail against God and against those who believe in Him not because they think we're wrong, but because they're afraid we're right. And they can't tolerate the idea of a power higher than themselves.
-
I have a theory about militant atheists. They rail against God and against those who believe in Him not because they think we're wrong, but because they're afraid we're right. And they can't tolerate the idea of a power higher than themselves.
It's all stuff-and-nonsense.
Reality is infinite; the number of brain-cells, although a very large number, is a finite number.
The nocturnally foul one is insisting a finite mind can comprehend the infinite.
But even if the brain-cells of every human being that has ever existed, and even if every human being that has ever existed had the cerebral capacity of Albert Einstein, were combined into one single brain, that brain would still have, although a very large number, a finite number.
The finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite; reality.
The nocturnally foul one is no atheist; the nocturnally foul one believes in a diety.
The problem is, the nocturnally foul one, like the malicious cartoon character primitive on Skins's island, thinks he's God.
-
I have a theory about militant atheists. They rail against God and against those who believe in Him not because they think we're wrong, but because they're afraid we're right. And they can't tolerate the idea of a power higher than themselves.
It's all stuff-and-nonsense.
Reality is infinite; the number of brain-cells, although a very large number, is a finite number.
The nocturnally foul one is insisting a finite mind can comprehend the infinite.
But even if the brain-cells of every human being that has ever existed, and even if every human being that has ever existed had the cerebral capacity of Albert Einstein, were combined into one single brain, that brain would still have, although a very large number, a finite number.
The finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite; reality.
The nocturnally foul one is no atheist; the nocturnally foul one believes in a diety.
The problem is, the nocturnally foul one, like the malicious cartoon character primitive on Skins's island, thinks he's God.
I once had a message board conversation with a woman who claimed she could perfectly understand the mind of God. I told her that any mind she was capable of understanding was not worthy of worship.
-
You know, what bothers me about these Ignorants is their belief that they know the truth about things, when in fact they don't know the truth about excresence.
Never mind the global warming fantasy.
In my own lifetime, I really suspect I shall see the "law of gravity"--a currently-accepted truth, if there ever were one--proven wrong; someone will come along and show that no, it's something else.
Sometime within this century, I really suspect that "2 + 2 = 4" will be similarly disproven, someone coming along to show that no, it's something else.
This is why I don't make any big deal about evolution--whether man evolved from apes, or was created by God, or space aliens brought us here, is utterly meaningless to me.
We'll never know, the human mind although great being finite, being incapable of understanding the absolute final truth.
Throughout all of human history, there's prolific examples of "final truths," "absolute truths," "eternal truths," that later proved flimsy lies.
Anyone, such as the nocturnally foul one, who says "I know such-and-such" to be the "truth" is an egoist, finite and fallible man trying to be infinite and infallible God.
I frankly suggest the nocturnally foul one start thinking in terms of "I think" or "I believe," rather than "I know."
Once the nocturnally foul one starts thinking that way, he might find life a great deal easier, even his haemerrhoids bothering him less.
-
Q: What does that look like for you, and how do you feed that personal relationship with God? Some people talk about prayer, talking to God. Some talk about reading the Bible and experiencing God that way. What does that look like for you?
Senator Clinton: It has looked like the connection that I felt like I made as a child but just kept growing and was always present in my life. I believe in the father, son, and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth. I pray, I read the Bible, I read commentary on scriptures, I read other people’s faith journeys. That is, for me, at the real core of how I keep feeding my faith. And, I was lucky because, as I said at the faith and politics event, I was taught to pray and I inculcate it as a habit in my daily life.
Excuse my language, but what a bunch of ****ing bullshit.
-
As for your question...God has said that none can see Him and live, so a man claiming to be God would be obviously false, regardless of how he arrived in front of me, or else I'd be dead.
You're dodging the question. The Bible indicates that God is omnipotent. So, even if humans normally die as a result of seeing God, God can, if he wants to, prevent a person from dying after seeing him.
-
Anyone, such as the nocturnally foul one, who says "I know such-and-such" to be the "truth" is an egoist, finite and fallible man trying to be infinite and infallible God.
I don't claim to know the truth. I'm just more nearly certain about some things than other things.
-
A man appears before you out of thin air and claims to be God. The man tells you to kill the next person you see wearing red shoes. What do you do?
Seeing as "even the Devil appears of an angel of light" you would weigh the decision against your God-given sense of morality at which point you would reason that a god of justice would never seek the arbitrary murder of an innocent person or order the execution of a guilty person without establishing a moral context; ergo the man claiming to be God is only a devil or a charlaton to be rebuked.
Welcome to Failville. Population: you.
How would you know that the person who the apparition is asking you to kill is innocent? Perhaps the person the apparition is asking you to kill is a serial killer or a serial killer in the making.
-
You don't read, do you?
-
You don't read, do you?
I've read everything in this thread. All you're trying to do here is look for any way out of dealing with the question I presented.
-
...a god of justice would never...order the execution of a guilty person without establishing a moral context...
idjit
-
...a god of justice would never...order the execution of a guilty person without establishing a moral context...
idjit
What you think God would or would not do is irrelevant. A supreme being can do whatever it wants to do and is not obliged to act according to how you imagine it should act.
-
...a god of justice would never...order the execution of a guilty person without establishing a moral context...
idjit
What you think God would or would not do is irrelevant. A supreme being can do whatever it wants and is not compelled to act according to how you imagine it should act.
Exactly, so stop proposing idiotic scenarios about a being you have no belief in. Fair enough? :mental:
-
...a god of justice would never...order the execution of a guilty person without establishing a moral context...
idjit
What you think God would or would not do is irrelevant. A supreme being can do whatever it wants and is not compelled to act according to how you imagine it should act.
Horsecrap.
All you're doing is proposing a rewritten version of Euthyphro.
The whole absurdity pre-supposes what it presumes to refute: a supreme moral standard.
You propose to confound me by asserting that Omniscience need not explain itself, merely demand faith and obedience. Nevermind the fact that the Bible you make your back-handed attack against is replete with tales of the saints and prophets complaining, arguing and bargaining; let's just deal with your child's riddle as it stands flops.
Without the moral context (even provided during such controversies as the Canaanite genocides) the agent of the apparition would never be sure if his act was just. He may seek to reconcile his act based on obedience to the Divine but taking orders is in no way a virtue in and of itself. In fact the entire episode becomes one big act of weighing various moral standards.
But herein lies the rub: moral standards.
Does a god of justice order his faithful to commit acts of violence while leaving them in moral uncertainty?
You cannot deflect by saying,"Well, maybe he isn't a god of justice, maybe he is merely a god of blind obedience."
pfft!
Go talk to the Mohammedans if that's the BS you're peddling.
Why would a god of obedience instill a sense of justice in his beloved creatures if he only sought to offend that sense; but more importantly: Where would such a god obtain a sense of justice to be instilled and subsequently offended out of caprice? The answer would betray that Justice resides beyond this particular god and if we curse this god we curse him to a higher God still.
So while Euthyphro left Socrates confounded we know that Justice is not merely Justice because God orders it and God does not order it because Justice is a thing outside His being He is beholden to. Justice is part of God's essence. He is Justice and Justice is Him (as are His other attributes as apprehended by human mind).
Now we return to what I have told you twice in two seperate threads yet you continue to ignore: you moralize and pose childish moralist riddles yet you cannot show empirical proof #1 for what you preach. At least these fundies have a book that claims to be actual history. What you got?
Grow-up, boy. You're playing with matches at a gas station.
-
As for your question...God has said that none can see Him and live, so a man claiming to be God would be obviously false, regardless of how he arrived in front of me, or else I'd be dead.
You're dodging the question. The Bible indicates that God is omnipotent. So, even if humans normally die as a result of seeing God, God can, if he wants to, prevent a person from dying after seeing him.
As God is the One Who said we can't look upon Him with dying, what makes you think He'd want to prevent it?
And I do have a habit of ignoring ridiculous questions...it's the product of raising 5 kids.
-
Without the moral context (even provided during such controversies as the Canaanite genocides) the agent of the apparition would never be sure if his act was just. He may seek to reconcile his act based on obedience to the Divine but taking orders is in no way a virtue in and of itself. In fact the entire episode becomes one big act of weighing various moral standards.
Well, what would you consider to be the kind of "moral context" which would compell you to follow an apparition's instructions?
-
As God is the One Who said we can't look upon Him with dying, what makes you think He'd want to prevent it?
And I do have a habit of ignoring ridiculous questions...it's the product of raising 5 kids.
Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not saying what God would or wouldn't do. What I'm saying is that if God wanted to appear before someone without having that person die, it could do that, could it not?
You're just trying to avoid the question.
-
As God is the One Who said we can't look upon Him with dying, what makes you think He'd want to prevent it?
And I do have a habit of ignoring ridiculous questions...it's the product of raising 5 kids.
Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not saying what God would or wouldn't do. What I'm saying is that if God wanted to appear before someone without having that person die, it could do that, could it not?
You're just trying to avoid the question.
What you are proposing is based on an idiocy.
That being to question the Word and motivation of God while attempting to mock or question His omnipotence and thus existence.
In the first place if a man appeared before me and claimed to be God,then directed me to kill someone,I would know that it was not so because I believe in the Word and there is nothing in the Bible to suggest such an event.
That is the essence of faith,I believe in His Word so none of your mind traps are of great interest to me.
To provide you an answer that seems important to you for some reason it would be yes.
If God chose to appear before a man and not have that person die He certainly could do so.
However since He has decared that not to be the case then there is no reason to think He would,your little diversion notwithstanding.
-
Without the moral context (even provided during such controversies as the Canaanite genocides) the agent of the apparition would never be sure if his act was just. He may seek to reconcile his act based on obedience to the Divine but taking orders is in no way a virtue in and of itself. In fact the entire episode becomes one big act of weighing various moral standards.
Well, what would you consider to be the kind of "moral context" which would compell you to follow an apparition's instructions?
Again you ignore the answer (but then again that describes much of your beliefs systems)...
You cannot deflect by saying,"Well, maybe he isn't a god of justice, maybe he is merely a god of blind obedience."
pfft!
Go talk to the Mohammedans if that's the BS you're peddling.
Why would a god of obedience instill a sense of justice in his beloved creatures if he only sought to offend that sense; but more importantly: Where would such a god obtain a sense of justice to be instilled and subsequently offended out of caprice? The answer would betray that Justice resides beyond this particular god and if we curse this god we curse him to a higher God still.
So while Euthyphro left Socrates confounded we know that Justice is not merely Justice because God orders it and God does not order it because Justice is a thing outside His being He is beholden to. Justice is part of God's essence. He is Justice and Justice is Him (as are His other attributes as apprehended by human mind).
Now we return to what I have told you twice in two seperate threads yet you continue to ignore: you moralize and pose childish moralist riddles yet you cannot show empirical proof #1 for what you preach. At least these fundies have a book that claims to be actual history. What you got?
-
I don't claim to know the truth. I'm just more nearly certain about some things than other things.
Well, hot damn, now we're starting to get along.
I'm pretty sure 2 + 2 + 4; it makes sense to me.
I'm pretty sure gravity is as it's represented to be; it makes sense to me.
I'm pretty sure there's been some sort of evolution of mankind; it makes sense to me.
But "pretty sure" and "nearly certain" are pretty far from what your pal on Skins's island, the malicious cartoon character primitive, the "rationalist," says about things. The malicious cartoon character primitive, the "rationalist," isn't merely pretty sure or nearly certain about things; the malicious cartoon character primitive KNOWS he knows the Eternal Truth, and KNOWS all else is nonsense.
The malicious cartoon character primitive knows All.
franksolich is only "pretty sure" about things, because franksolich when examining the broad vista of humanity and the experience of humanity, finds it's cluttered with all sorts of things accepted as the Eternal Truth, that turned out wrong.
No one living in 1808 had the same perception of time, space, and speed, as anyone living in 2008 does.
Albert Einstein about halfway between 1808 and 2008 changed the ways we perceive such things.
And sooner or later, somebody else is going to upset the Einstein apple-cart, proving that no, something else is actually the case, in regards to time, space, and speed.
So franksolich keeps the door open a little bit; not much, but enough so that if a new truth is proven, it can waft inside.
Unlike your pal the malicious cartoon character primitive on Skins's island, who has the door to his own mind not only shut, but locked, and not only locked, but barred, and not only barred, but superglued to the door-frame.
It's like this evolution thing, an issue which seems pretty irrelevant to me, the whole question about the origins of mankind being a frivolous argument over trifles.
The most basic, the core, the heart, of Roman Catholic theology, a theology to which franksolich enthusiastically adheres, is that God is the "First Cause" of all things; the spark that ignites.
After the spark is ignited, it becomes rather murky, who's to blame for what, who's to credit for what.
Evolution makes sense to me, especially the part about "natural selection;" in fact, it's too bad we don't apply the theory of natural selection to politics, too, as we're seeing it happen right now, right before our eyes, as the Democrats, liberals, and primitives wither away into inevitable extinction.
Natural selection at its finest.
I happen to think--I'm pretty sure--however that something other than natural selection is bound to happen, like with the meteorite that ostensibly destroyed all dinosaur life on earth eons ago; I more suspect that some external force--probably the terrorists--are going to kill off the Democrats, liberals, and primitives (their ideology and attitude, not necessarily their persons, but of course that can happen too) before they naturally wither away.
Natural selection.
However, I'm only pretty sure about evolution; since God is Almighty and All-Powerful and Eternal, it might be that God instantaneously "created" rocks and fossils "millions of years old" so as to befuddle and consternate prideful human intellects.
God can do things like that.
And one assumes God has a sense of humor, and uses it.
-
In the first place if a man appeared before me and claimed to be God,then directed me to kill someone,I would know that it was not so because I believe in the Word and there is nothing in the Bible to suggest such an event.
According to the Bible, God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, did he not? Perhaps the apparation asking you to kill the next person you see wearing red shoes is God testing you in the same way he tested Abraham. What do you do?
-
In the first place if a man appeared before me and claimed to be God,then directed me to kill someone,I would know that it was not so because I believe in the Word and there is nothing in the Bible to suggest such an event.
According to the Bible, God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, did he not? Perhaps the apparation asking you to kill the next person you see wearing red shoes is God testing you in the same way he tested Abraham. What do you do?
Scarifices are Old Testament Law. Jesus came to be the ultimate sacrifice, so I would know that the "being" before me is an imposter, as blood sacrifice is no longer needed for salvation.
-
Scarifices are Old Testament Law. Jesus came to be the ultimate sacrifice, so I would know that the "being" before me is an imposter, as blood sacrifice is no longer needed for salvation.
Getting you to kill someone may not be the apparation's intent. The apparition's intent may be getting you to agree to kill someone.
Just as God did not want Isaac slain, the apparation may not want the next person you see wearing red shoes to be killed. In asking you to kill the next person you see wearing red shoes, God may be testing your trust in him in the same way that he tested Abraham's trust in him. So, what do you do?
-
Scarifices are Old Testament Law. Jesus came to be the ultimate sacrifice, so I would know that the "being" before me is an imposter, as blood sacrifice is no longer needed for salvation.
Getting you to kill someone may not be the apparation's intent. The apparition's intent may be getting you to agree to kill someone.
Just as God did not want Isaac slain, the apparation may not want the next person you see wearing red shoes to be killed. In asking you to kill the next person you see wearing red shoes, God may be testing your trust in him in the same way that he tested Abraham's trust in him. So, what do you do?
I know you are being purposely obtuse, so let me type this slowly. God would not ask us to kill anyone. Therefore, I would know the "thing" is a fake.
That being said, I have better things to do with my time than to argue with a tool (like color my fingetnails purple with a crayon) so I'm outta this thread.
-
Oy vey! Yes, TNO has me speaking yiddish now. :lmao:
-
Oy vey! Yes, TNO has me speaking yiddish now. :lmao:
You want I should find you a hit man wholesale?
-
Scarifices are Old Testament Law. Jesus came to be the ultimate sacrifice, so I would know that the "being" before me is an imposter, as blood sacrifice is no longer needed for salvation.
Getting you to kill someone may not be the apparation's intent. The apparition's intent may be getting you to agree to kill someone.
Just as God did not want Isaac slain, the apparation may not want the next person you see wearing red shoes to be killed. In asking you to kill the next person you see wearing red shoes, God may be testing your trust in him in the same way that he tested Abraham's trust in him. So, what do you do?
Post stupid questions on the internet.
-
Oy vey! Yes, TNO has me speaking yiddish now. :lmao:
You want I should find you a hit man wholesale?
Laffing, cuz if I didn't laff, Im die.
-
As God is the One Who said we can't look upon Him with dying, what makes you think He'd want to prevent it?
And I do have a habit of ignoring ridiculous questions...it's the product of raising 5 kids.
Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not saying what God would or wouldn't do. What I'm saying is that if God wanted to appear before someone without having that person die, it could do that, could it not?
You're just trying to avoid the question.
With the exception of Moses, whose relationship with God in the form of a cloud or pillar of flame caused him to require a veil due to the light coming from his skin, every other person who needed to hear from God either saw an angel or knew Christ. The point isn't whether or not God could do such a thing, the point is that God wouldn't do such a thing because He told us that we can't look upon Him with dying.
-
With the exception of Moses, whose relationship with God in the form of a cloud or pillar of flame caused him to require a veil due to the light coming from his skin, every other person who needed to hear from God either saw an angel or knew Christ. The point isn't whether or not God could do such a thing, the point is that God wouldn't do such a thing because He told us that we can't look upon Him with dying.
A supreme being can change it's mind, can it not?
-
Poor little TNO.
Still trying to use Reason, Justice and Mercy to argue Reason, Justice and Mercy don't exist.
-
Poor little TNO.
Still trying to use Reason, Justice and Mercy to argue Reason, Justice and Mercy don't exist.
actually he's not trying to use reason or anything else...he's just doing what he does bst...being an irritating, argumentative 'tard.
-
Wow.
The nocturnally foul one's still alive, although just barely.
-
Wow.
The nocturnally foul one's still alive, although just barely.
I'm doing just fine, thank you.
-
With the exception of Moses, whose relationship with God in the form of a cloud or pillar of flame caused him to require a veil due to the light coming from his skin, every other person who needed to hear from God either saw an angel or knew Christ. The point isn't whether or not God could do such a thing, the point is that God wouldn't do such a thing because He told us that we can't look upon Him with dying.
A supreme being can change it's mind, can it not?
Actually, there are scriptures that support the idea that God will change His mind in response to repentance and prayer. Maybe if you work at both really hard... :-)
-
Actually, there are scriptures that support the idea that God will change His mind in response to repentance and prayer. Maybe if you work at both really hard... :-)
Nah. If God exists and is omniscient, then it can't change its mind about anything because any thought it has is formed with perfect foreknowledge of whether it will change its mind or not.
:naughty:
-
Actually, there are scriptures that support the idea that God will change His mind in response to repentance and prayer. Maybe if you work at both really hard... :-)
Nah. If God exists and is omniscient, then it can't change it's mind about anything because any thought it has is formed with perfect foreknowledge of whether it will change its mind or not.
:naughty:
So He knows when you're going to pray and repent. Works for me! :innocent:
-
With the exception of Moses, whose relationship with God in the form of a cloud or pillar of flame caused him to require a veil due to the light coming from his skin, every other person who needed to hear from God either saw an angel or knew Christ. The point isn't whether or not God could do such a thing, the point is that God wouldn't do such a thing because He told us that we can't look upon Him with dying.
A supreme being can change it's mind, can it not?
Now you are being ridiculous because there is simply no "point" to be made by your arguement (?).
While God could very easily make a decree at some point and change it later all the while knowing He was going to do that what of it?
The fact that He has made a declaration means He knows He will not change it so it will be eternal.
Now we can talk about this forever in circles but I fail to see what you are trying to prove or what you are seeking to establish and why.
Now then I would say it is up to you to explain what you are asking/proposing and why.
If it is to play games then I guess there are better things one can do with time.
-
So He knows when you're going to pray and repent. Works for me! :innocent:
Right... An omniscient being knows everything... past, present, and future. So, if God knows where each of us will end up, then why should any of us pretend that we have a choice in the matter?
-
While God could very easily make a decree at some point and change it later all the while knowing He was going to do that what of it?
The point is that if God can perfectly predict the future, then the future can't be changed. If the future can't be changed, then God doesn't have free will. He is following a script which is simply playing out.
-
While God could very easily make a decree at some point and change it later all the while knowing He was going to do that what of it?
The point is that if God can perfectly predict the future, then the future can't be changed. If the future can't be changed, then God doesn't have free will. He is following a script which is simply playing out.
What you are ignoring is that it isn`t a script or a prediction He is reacting to but His own plan by His own will.
I suspect that this isn`t out of ignorance but is a deliberate and subtle attempt to deny His existence without saying so.
-
What you are ignoring is that it isn`t a script or a prediction He is reacting to but His own plan by His own will.
Regardless of what we call existence, the fact remains that a future which is perfectly predicted is a future which cannot be changed.
-
What you are ignoring is that it isn`t a script or a prediction He is reacting to but His own plan by His own will.
Regardless of what we call existence, the fact remains that a future which is perfectly predicted is a future which cannot be changed.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make exactly.
God has allowed us to have free will,therefore we are capable of altering our lives whether it is in accordance with Gods will or it isn`t.
That doesn`t negate His omnipotence or omniscience.
If you don`t believe in God that is your choice and part of that free will,so be it.
-
I have no idea what point you are trying to make exactly.
If God has the ability to perfectly predict something you will do, then you can't decide against that action because doing so would mean that God did not perfectly predict what you would do... which is impossible since God is supposed to be perfect... hence, no free will.
God has allowed us to have free will,therefore we are capable of altering our lives whether it is in accordance with Gods will or it isn`t.
That doesn`t negate His omnipotence or omniscience.
The idea that God has a plan contradicts the idea that mankind has free will. If mankind has free will, then mankind can subvert God's plan. If mankind can subvert God's plan, then the plan is both God's plan and mankind's plan.
-
I have no idea what point you are trying to make exactly.
If God has the ability to perfectly predict something you will do, then you can't decide against that action because doing so would mean that God did not perfectly predict what you would do... hence, no free will.
God has allowed us to have free will,therefore we are capable of altering our lives whether it is in accordance with Gods will or it isn`t.
That doesn`t negate His omnipotence or omniscience.
The idea that God has a plan contradicts the idea that mankind has free will. If mankind has free will, then mankind can subvert God's plan. If mankind can subvert God's plan, then the plan is both God's plan and mankind's plan.
Once again you are attempting to use subtle words to throw off the subject,in this case "predict" to assert that God does not already know the eventual outcome.
That is not the point of discussion,whether God knows and will allow things to happen outside His plan.
The answer is yes,God does know and allow it.
You are attempting to re-define the terms to alter the subject.
-
Once again you are attempting to use subtle words to throw off the subject,in this case "predict" to assert that God does not already know the eventual outcome.
I'm not arguing that God does not know outcomes... just the opposite. What I'm arguing is that if God knows outcomes, then those outcomes can't be changed.
-
Once again you are attempting to use subtle words to throw off the subject,in this case "predict" to assert that God does not already know the eventual outcome.
I'm not arguing that God does not know outcomes... just the opposite. What I'm arguing is that if God knows outcomes, then those outcomes can't be changed.
Then I guess there is no real issue,God knows what choices a person will make and what the eventual outcome of those choices will be.
He doesn`t want a person to reject Him but if a person does then He also knows the consequences and final result as He has declared.
-
TNO, God does not "predict" the future. He knows the outcome because He exists outside time. The fact that He knows what you'll choose does not negate your choice.
-
So He knows when you're going to pray and repent. Works for me! :innocent:
Right... An omniscient being knows everything... past, present, and future. So, if God knows where each of us will end up, then why should any of us pretend that we have a choice in the matter?
The individual doesn't know.
That would mean any acts by deity to secure penance, salvation or whatnot would not have any effect on omniscience but be solely geared towards leading the actualization of the free individual.
When Moses was returning from Sinai and the people were dancing about the golden calf God told Moses to see what the people were doing and then stand aside while He annihilated them and used Moses to raise up a new nation.
Why would Omnipotence ask a mere elderly human to stand aside when It could affect It's will at any time? Obviously It has no need. It was allowing Moses to move beyond his role as lawgiver and assume the role of intercessor.