DP

thehomer:

You either have a have a poor reading comprehension skill or you're simply not bright. My point there is that your responses don't actually answer the question. If you think they do, please explain it. Note that they say nothing about his nature. They simply talk about what he did or things that humans did.

I'm collapsing this discussion into the ongoing one about God's Nature because of the question that you asked that's raising this furor. The question was, "Why did God create people with the nature of being disobedient to Him?" or the equivalent of that. This question is premised on the assumption that God created people with a nature that biases them towards disobeying Him. So, it poses the question: would God do such a thing? Would it be consistent with His Nature to do so? These questions are under address in the next issue, therefore I'll collapse this issue into it.

This is why I say you have a poor reading comprehension. How does what you've said above reveal God's nature to you? Or do you think that being a spirit or having a spirit is something's nature? (i.e if you can even coherently describe what a spirit is.)

It is reasonable to say that if a person has a preference for a certain thing, then it is their nature to always try to get it.

No it isn't a running debate in the scientific community. You must be confusing creationists with actual scientists with the relevant knowledge e.g geologists. The scientific consensus has given us the best answers. Besides, according to the Bible, when did sapient beings arrive on the earth?

No sir. I am currently under the impression that geologists and physicists are in disagreement as to the correct age.

Now you're just trying to evade a simple question that shows your contradictions.

thehomer, what is simple about your question?

Wait so I'm supposed to just swallow what you've said that goes against my own conclusions and that of people who have studied and taught the Bible? Are you serious?

You need not take my word as law here. Shall we examine the matter?
You said that Jesus implied that the stones will cry out in the praise that the people were to refrain from. I returned that that is a misrepresentation of Jesus's words. I have quoted His words. There was no indication of any sort that the stones would cry out in praise. If you see any, I'm willing to be shown. If the links you spoke of will actually help you prove this out, by all means, provide them. I don't mind being proved wrong.

I didn't say anything about wet dreams.

Well, what you did say is on a par with what diluminati said.

You see, if a position is shown to be wrong, reasonable people drop that position while unreasonable people maintain that position with respect to what is under consideration. So, contrary to what you've said above, arguments actually do make true converts.

We don't need to turn everything into an argument, you know. Doing so implies the lack of recognition of the merit of running arguments. I disagree with you and can show beyond reasonable doubt that you're wrong, but I request that we leave it alone.

thehomer:

Don't make that assumption. Some people actually do feel remorse and feel that they should be punished for what they've done. Besides whether or not the person feels they should be punished is irrelevant.

Although we can still disagree on what constitutes as sin but you're largely correct.

I know because in the case of Christianity, I've examined the claims, their core assumptions and the cures and found them wanting.

I generally am a good person are you a good person?

My friend, you missed the point I was making: If you feel you should be punished for what you have done and you reject the sacrifice that has been made for you. then you leave the judge no other choice that to mete out to you the full punishment due to you. Do not turn around and blame the Judge for injustice when He rightfully punishes you. Seeing that you have rejected his mercy.

We'll come back to how examined christianity but for now, to answer your question: Yes I am a good person. I am blameless before God, Christ has borne my sin.

Now for you: What makes you a good person?

truthislight:

there was no mention of fruit in heaven where satan started and got some angels to join him in his couse of disobedience.

He simply took the same action down to earth.

He knew of God's plans for the earth to be made to be filled with humans.

The tree/fruit is a symbol of God's authority.

Satan simply brought to earth what he had started in heaven.

It is not just the fruit that is the problem but the DISOBEDIENCE. GENESIS 2:17

To understand this think of what was wrong with bread in the case of Jesus and what was Jesus answer to satan.

Imagine if Jesus had obeyed satan what will have happened. Lose God's favour.

After the temptations what did satan then ask for? = an act of worship

now you can see what obedience to satan translate to.

Adam was very stupid to have obeyed satan that had never given him a single thing but the wife greedily fell for a false offer. Was that the only fruit in the garden?

chosing to obey satan instead of God,
surrendering over to satan, the bible let us know (whomever you obey is your master Romans 6:16)

rejecting God the source of life and obeying satan that cant sustain us kept us were we are.

With the Failues and suffering due to disobedience no man or angel will ever again ever challenge Yahweh again for all eternity after satan have been destroyed,
for this will serve as a warning example for all eternity after the world is cleans of all unrigtheousness.

Peace

If the tree/fruit is symbolic, what makes you think other parts of the Bible aren't symbolic? Also notice that you've not actually addressed the main problem which is: why didn't God create this garden without the fruit?

Ihedinobi:

I'm collapsing this discussion into the ongoing one about God's Nature because of the question that you asked that's raising this furor. The question was, "Why did God create people with the nature of being disobedient to Him?" or the equivalent of that. This question is premised on the assumption that God created people with a nature that biases them towards disobeying Him. So, it poses the question: would God do such a thing? Would it be consistent with His Nature to do so? These questions are under address in the next issue, therefore I'll collapse this issue into it.

Since you've shifted your response to some next issue, I'll wait to see it before responding.

Ihedinobi:
It is reasonable to say that if a person has a preference for a certain thing, then it is their nature to always try to get it.

This doesn't actually say anything about what God's nature is.

Ihedinobi:
No sir. I am currently under the impression that geologists and physicists are in disagreement as to the correct age.

That is a wrong impression. To help you demonstrate this, what are the ages of the earth given by geologists and physicists?

Ihedinobi:
thehomer, what is simple about your question?

The simplicity lies in the fact that those living things don't have anything that can be called freewill.

Ihedinobi:
You need not take my word as law here. Shall we examine the matter?
You said that Jesus implied that the stones will cry out in the praise that the people were to refrain from. I returned that that is a misrepresentation of Jesus's words. I have quoted His words. There was no indication of any sort that the stones would cry out in praise. If you see any, I'm willing to be shown. If the links you spoke of will actually help you prove this out, by all means, provide them. I don't mind being proved wrong.

If the stones weren't to cry out in praise, will they cry out in pain or just make some noise?
You can check these explanations of that passage. One, two (third part of the essay in the paragraph labelled 4, three pay attention to this heading " The Response of The Pharisees: God's Coming Judgment on Jerusalem (19.39-46). ".

Ihedinobi:
Well, what you did say is on a par with what diluminati said.

What did I say that was on par with what diluminati said?

Ihedinobi:
We don't need to turn everything into an argument, you know. Doing so implies the lack of recognition of the merit of running arguments. I disagree with you and can show beyond reasonable doubt that you're wrong, but I request that we leave it alone.

That response there isn't about turning everything into an argument. It is to demonstrate that reasonable people are convinced by argument. Disagreeing with this is an indication that one tends to be unreasonable when their initial conceptions are shown to be wrong.

Mr_Anony:
My friend, you missed the point I was making: If you feel you should be punished for what you have done and you reject the sacrifice that has been made for you. then you leave the judge no other choice that to mete out to you the full punishment due to you. Do not turn around and blame the Judge for injustice when He rightfully punishes you. Seeing that you have rejected his mercy.

You're conflating several things. The Christian claim with what justice actually is. You need to realize that the Christian conception of justice may not actually be just and that is what I'm pointing out.

Mr_Anony:
We'll come back to how examined christianity but for now, to answer your question: Yes I am a good person. I am blameless before God, Christ has borne my sin.

Now for you: What makes you a good person?

The words and actions I perform and those that I do not perform.

I don't see how one being blameless before God because Christ has borne their sin makes them a good person. I'm sure some death row inmates can say the same. Would they also be good people for saying that?

thehomer:

Since you've shifted your response to some next issue, I'll wait to see it before responding.

Do we have a current discussion on God's Nature? If we do, that's the "next issue" I meant.

This doesn't actually say anything about what God's nature is.

Please, go on to show me how it doesn't.

That is a wrong impression. To help you demonstrate this, what are the ages of the earth given by geologists and physicists?

I just partially concluded my investigations into the matter and received information that I couldn't gain full access to that the physicists' radiometric dating methods won out in the end. You may ignore my assertions.

The simplicity lies in the fact that those living things don't have anything that can be called freewill.

You weren't asking a question then.

If the stones weren't to cry out in praise, will they cry out in pain or just make some noise?
You can check these explanations of that passage. One, two (third part of the essay in the paragraph labelled 4, three pay attention to this heading " The Response of The Pharisees: God's Coming Judgment on Jerusalem (19.39-46). ".

In a subsequent post, I'll lump my answer to this together with the matter of God's Nature currently under examination. We will proceed from there.

What did I say that was on par with what diluminati said?

Go check for yourself, sir.

Ihedinobi:

Do we have a current discussion on God's Nature? If we do, that's the "next issue" I meant.

I know we do but I didn't see your response.

Ihedinobi:
Please, go on to show me how it doesn't.

It doesn't say what his nature actually is. Please read your own statement there and tell me how you can deduce his nature from it.

Ihedinobi:
I just partially concluded my investigations into the matter and received information that I couldn't gain full access to that the physicists' radiometric dating methods won out in the end. You may ignore my assertions.

Since you're now willing to accept that there isn't a scientific dispute on the age of the earth, what then do you say about when sapient life arrived on earth?

Ihedinobi:
You weren't asking a question then.

It was a question. It ended with a question mark. You wished to evade it. Are you now ready to answer?

Ihedinobi:
In a subsequent post, I'll lump my answer to this together with the matter of God's Nature currently under examination. We will proceed from there.

Well whenever you're ready.

Ihedinobi:
Go check for yourself, sir.

You want me to go out and verify your own claim for you? Are you serious?

thehomer:

If the tree/fruit is symbolic, what makes you think other parts of the Bible aren't symbolic? Also notice that you've not actually addressed the main problem which is: why didn't God create this garden without the fruit?

(1) you should rather show a better way that God should have shown Adam to recognise him as the source of authority without contradiction by his adversary that has already started doing that in heaven.

(2) that the tree is a symbol of God authority can you tell us why you think it did not exist in the garden?

(3) there was some one that told other inteligent creatures to do things that are in opposition/contrary/opposite to what God layed down instructions are for the best result as the creator.
Adam keeping to that simple instruction of not eating from the tree means that he recognise only God as a source of guidance that cant fail.

The tree helps Adam to know that although he was a free moral agent there are bounderies he should not cross although he can cross it if he wishes.

This will prevent Adam from being manipulated as long as he sticks/looks on to God via obeying him as the universal soverign.
(by not eating from the tree)

without the tree satan can easily manipulate him Adam since there was no instruction to the contrary, should God shear his authority with satan?
Satan had swede angels in heaven and God was simply setting bounderie which were withing his right as the creator.
(as useful as your car is try driving it without breaks)
= controls

the bible say that God almighty cannot shear his author with anyone.

I dont know why a literal tree cannot represent a symbol!

Can you tell me what was wrong with Jesus turning stone into bread?

Do you really know the implication of "knowing good and bad"?

That is if you know that what God will ever tell Adam can only fall into those two category.

(4) the bible is self explanatry.

The outcome of an ACTION and the way God sees it is a guird as to how to understand the incident.

Also, the bible absolutely explain itself that it does not need external input.

Any understanding that is gotten from the bible but that contradicts other parts of the bible is null and void

the thread of the bible lets you know what kind of statement that statement is, we are not on a liberty to chose for ourserves what to take as symbolism or not in the bible.

Adam ate a literal fruit, that God said he should not eat and that led to God sentencing him for disobedience.

Explain one(1) above. ^^

Note.; the bible explain itself,
an Incident in GENESIS may have the sense of understanding in Revelation.
So also are other parts of the bible.
and this is done for a reason.

Peace
**edited*

thehomer:

You're conflating several things. The Christian claim with what justice actually is. You need to realize that the Christian conception of justice may not actually be just and that is what I'm pointing out.

Since we disagree on what justice actually is, perhaps you may want to tell me your definition of justice.

The words and actions I perform and those that I do not perform.

I don't see how one being blameless before God because Christ has borne their sin makes them a good person. I'm sure some death row inmates can say the same. Would they also be good people for saying that?

Interesting.....If you have never done anything bad in your life, then you are a good person. However, If you have done a few bad things, then you can no longer claim to be a good person unless your crimes have been paid for.

thehomer:

I know we do but I didn't see your response.



It doesn't say what his nature actually is. Please read your own statement there and tell me how you can deduce his nature from it.



Since you're now willing to accept that there isn't a scientific dispute on the age of the earth, what then do you say about when sapient life arrived on earth?



It was a question. It ended with a question mark. You wished to evade it. Are you now ready to answer?



Well whenever you're ready.



You want me to go out and verify your own claim for you? Are you serious?

Now, I'll tell you what I've been doing. It's actually the second time I've done it to you. The first was at the thread mkmyers45 started about morality requiring a source.

I have been showing that you're a dishonest debater. For instance, you knew that we had a running debate on the Nature of God, but you felt it necessary to lead another discussion we were having into effectively starting the debate all over again. Then you insulted my intelligence when I pointed out to you that doing so indicated either dishonesty or stu.pid.ity. I accommodated the insult because I felt that you received my conclusions concerning your behavior as an insult too.

I proceeded to indicate that rather than restarting the debate in another discussion, I'd collapse the discussion that led up to it into the ongoing one about God's Nature. What do you return? "I didn't see your response." I'm not even sure what response you mean, but if you indicate awareness of another discussion that is addressing, and has gone some substantial way in doing so, the question you led up to at this point, it was dishonesty on your part to pretend not to know that you'd circled back. An honest debater would simply indicate awareness that the question his arguments had led up to were under address and show whether or not and why or why not he would merge the two arguments. Did you? No, sir. Instead, you settled for a battle of insults.

Next instance. You ask me to go back to a statement I made to show that it indeed showed that the verse I provided intimated what God's Nature is. Do you see how absurd that is? I'll bet you say you don't. I'm supposed to explain an explanation that I employed to validate my use of a verse in the Bible to show what God's Nature is. What am I supposed to do? Do your work as my opponent for you? Should you not rather be the one who shows me how my explanation is insufficient?

From the beginning of the argument, you have done your best to paint me as a weak debater. I indicate that my knowledge of your debating behavior warrants my refusal to engage you beyond a certain point and you accuse me of cowardice. I indicate later on that a question you asked was no simple question but a trap for a new debate, you accuse me of evasion. I make a side comment, you build a debate out of it. What do these patterns of behavior indicate? Perhaps that you're not a serious debater, perhaps that you're a very dishonest one.

I don't care to waste time on people who behave as you do. You come to debate bearing one thing in mind: I'm gonna prove them wrong. When you find yourself failing, you begin to do your best to either discredit the debate or discredit your opponent(s). What point then does debate serve? It's a waste of time. And I do have other matters of importance to give my time to rather than running round in circles and exchanging insults with a dishonest or unserious debater.

I do not wish to continue. Make of that what you wish. I didn't start with you expecting to win or convince you of anything - I had you down pat as to what your convictions are. I engaged you solely to show that you're every bit as dishonest as I have always said you are. And I have done so without even laying traps for you. I engaged you normally like any other serious debater and you did your best to dig yourself under.

As to the debate concerning what Christ said about the stones, I just came in from church and thought to pick it up when I saw your other comments. You're not worth my going on to deal with it. So, I will refrain. Considering that my comments so far on that passage are unambiguous, I think that readers and other participants on this thread have no need for me to go any further in addressing the theological stances you indicated in those links.

Good day to you, sir.

Edited.

Ihedinobi:

Now, I'll tell you what I've been doing. It's actually the second time I've done it to you. The first was at the thread mkmyers45 started about morality requiring a source.

Rubbish. Go back to that thread and see the demonstration of your ineptitude in trying to debate.

Ihedinobi:
I have been showing that you're a dishonest debater. For instance, you knew that we had a running debate on the Nature of God, but you felt it necessary to lead another discussion we were having into effectively starting the debate all over again. Then you insulted my intelligence when I pointed out to you that doing so indicated either dishonesty or stu.pid.ity. I accommodated the insult because I felt that you received my conclusions concerning your behavior as an insult too.

Actually, you have shown no such thing. We have a debate on the nature of God but for some reason, you never actually said what his nature was instead you threw up weak analogies and irrelevant statements. Sorry but your responses only show you to be either dimwitted or just a common liar. Your conclusions were meant to be insulting so don't act surprised when you're insulted in return. Such sham outrage is just dumb.

Ihedinobi:
I proceeded to indicate that rather than restarting the debate in another discussion, I'd collapse the discussion that led up to it into the ongoing one about God's Nature. What do you return? "I didn't see your response." I'm not even sure what response you mean, but if you indicate awareness of another discussion that is addressing, and has gone some substantial way in doing so, the question you led up to at this point, it was dishonesty on your part to pretend not to know that you'd circled back. An honest debater would simply indicate awareness that the question his arguments had led up to were under address and show whether or not and why or why not he would merge the two arguments. Did you? No, sir. Instead, you settled for a battle of insults.

Did you actually say what God's nature was? You started by introducing spirit but when I asked you for clarification, you developed cold feet and started pushing your response to a future location. If you think I circled back, the sensible thing to do would be to demonstrate this by my own posts on this very thread. Go up the thread and see who started hurling insults first. If you can dish it, don't whine when you're on the receiving end.

Ihedinobi:
Next instance. You ask me to go back to a statement I made to show that it indeed showed that the verse I provided intimated what God's Nature is. Do you see how absurd that is? I'll bet you say you don't. I'm supposed to explain an explanation that I employed to validate my use of a verse in the Bible to show what God's Nature is. What am I supposed to do? Do your work as my opponent for you? Should you not rather be the one who shows me how my explanation is insufficient?

If your explanation is unclear or irrelevant, the onus is on you to explain it. Or don't you know what debates are about? Whenever I find your explanation to be useless or unclear, I say so. I can show you evidence of this too with my own posts. You would have done much better in conveying information with this paragraph by actually presenting my post as evidence rather than confusing yourself with these abstractions.

Ihedinobi:
From the beginning of the argument, you have done your best to paint me as a weak debater. I indicate that my knowledge of your debating behavior warrants my refusal to engage you beyond a certain point and you accuse me of cowardice. I indicate later on that a question you asked was no simple question but a trap for a new debate, you accuse me of evasion. I make a side comment, you build a debate out of it. What do these patterns of behavior indicate? Perhaps that you're not a serious debater, perhaps that you're a very dishonest one.

You actually are a weak to very poor debater. You're in no position to attempt to adjudicate my debating behaviour because you're too incompetent to know what a good debate behaviour actually looks like. If you're referring to the issue of the micro-organisms and such, they clearly demonstrate that God actually can create a world without sapient creatures and that directly contradicts your claim that he cannot. Were you too dense to see this? Or were you to cowardly to admit you were wrong again?

Ihedinobi:
I don't care to waste time on people who behave as you do. You come to debate bearing one thing in mind: I'm gonna prove them wrong. When you find yourself failing, you begin to do your best to either discredit the debate or discredit your opponent(s). What point then does debate serve? It's a waste of time. And I do have other matters of importance to give my time to rather than running round in circles and exchanging insults with a dishonest or unserious debater.

Boo hoo. Run away when you've had your rear handed to you on a platter.

Ihedinobi:
I do not wish to continue. Make of that what you wish. I didn't start with you expecting to win or convince you of anything - I had you down pat as to what your convictions are. I engaged you solely to show that you're every bit as dishonest as I have always said you are. And I have done so without even laying traps for you. I engaged you normally like any other serious debater and you did your best to dig yourself under.

Oh I definitely will make of it what I wish.

Ihedinobi:
As to the debate concerning what Christ said about the stones, I just came in from church and thought to pick it up when I saw your other comments. You're not worth my going on to deal with it. So, I will refrain. Considering that my comments so far on that passage are unambiguous, I think that readers and other participants on this thread have no need for me to go any further in addressing the theological stances you indicated in those links.

Once again, it appears that you've realized when you've been shown to be wrong and rather than honourably accepting that you were wrong, you choose to throw a hissy fit and run away with your tail between your legs. Remember that you asked for those links and I provided them. When I asked you for yours what did you do? You claimed the article was unavailable. You're quite the joker.

Ihedinobi:
Good day to you, sir.

Edited.

It must have taken you quite a while to type up this response but I guess it is easier for you to do than to actually defend your claims and present evidence for your accusations against me. That to me is the hallmark of one who is incompetent and deceitful.

Run along now.

Mr_Anony:
Since we disagree on what justice actually is, perhaps you may want to tell me your definition of justice.

By justice here, I mean the fifth definition here.

Dictionary.com:

5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

Mr_Anony:
Interesting.....If you have never done anything bad in your life, then you are a good person. However, If you have done a few bad things, then you can no longer claim to be a good person unless your crimes have been paid for.

In that case we have different conceptions of what it means to be a good person because to me a good person more often than not does good things and doesn't do bad things.
Keep in mind that in considering these good or bad things, the magnitude of these acts are also important.

I'm also of the opinion that another person cannot pay for your crimes. Crimes aren't monetary debts by the way.

Based on your idea of what a good person is, are mass murderers on death row who claim that Jesus has paid for their sins also good people?

truthislight:

(1) you should rather show a better way that God should have shown Adam to recognise him as the source of authority without contradiction by his adversary that has already started doing that in heaven.

I don't need to do that, I can simply show that he didn't need to create the fruit.

truthislight:
(2) that the tree is a symbol of God authority can you tell us why you think it did not exist in the garden?

I don't even think there was a garden of Eden. As far as I'm concerned, it is just one other myth.

truthislight:
(3) there was some one that told other inteligent creatures to do things that are in opposition/contrary/opposite to what God layed down instructions are for the best result as the creator.
Adam keeping to that simple instruction of not eating from the tree means that he recognise only God as a source of guidance that cant fail.

Adam won't have needed that instruction if there was no fruit.

truthislight:
The tree helps Adam to know that although he was a free moral agent there are bounderies he should not cross although he can cross it if he wishes.

This will prevent Adam from being manipulated as long as he sticks/looks on to God via obeying him as the universal soverign.
(by not eating from the tree)

without the tree satan can easily manipulate him Adam since there was no instruction to the contrary, should God shear his authority with satan?
Satan had swede angels in heaven and God was simply setting bounderie which were withing his right as the creator.
(as useful as your car is try driving it without breaks)
= controls

the bible say that God almighty cannot shear his author with anyone.

I dont know why a literal tree cannot represent a symbol!

Can you tell me what was wrong with Jesus turning stone into bread?

Do you really know the implication of "knowing good and bad"?

That is if you know that what God will ever tell Adam can only fall into those two category.

(4) the bible is self explanatry.

The outcome of an ACTION and the way God sees it is a guird as to how to understand the incident.

Also, the bible absolutely explain itself that it does not need external input.

Any understanding that is gotten from the bible but that contradicts other parts of the bible is null and void

the thread of the bible lets you know what kind of statement that statement is, we are not on a liberty to chose for ourserves what to take as symbolism or not in the bible.

Adam ate a literal fruit, that God said he should not eat and that led to God sentencing him for disobedience.

Explain one(1) above. ^^

Note.; the bible explain itself,
an Incident in GENESIS may have the sense of understanding in Revelation.
So also are other parts of the bible.
and this is done for a reason.

Peace
**edited*

With respect to the issue in bold, are you saying the contradiction is null and void or that the understanding is null and void?

thehomer:

By justice here, I mean the fifth definition here.

5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

In that case we have different conceptions of what it means to be a good person because to me a good person more often than not does good things and doesn't do bad things.
Keep in mind that in considering these good or bad things, the magnitude of these acts are also important.

I'm also of the opinion that another person cannot pay for your crimes. Crimes aren't monetary debts by the way.

Based on your idea of what a good person is, are mass murderers on death row who claim that Jesus has paid for their sins also good people?

I'll give you another definiton from dictionary.com.....which is Atonement.

1.satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.

Without a system of atonement, you cannot have justice.

Now that said, I want to put to you that your problem is not with the justice system but the means of atonement however what you are failing to realize is that the acceptable means of atonement is determined by the one who has been offended (in this case the judge) and not the offender.
If it is then that the offender is offered forgiveness and he rejects it, then it is only fair that the offender be punished with the highest severity.

Now about what a good person is: Basically you've said if a person has done more good than bad, then such a person is a good person.

What you have failed to consider is that the magnitude of a crime can only best be determined by the aggrieved and not the offender.

I'll put to you that if you commit only one crime, you are a criminal and justice demands that you must pay for that crime same as the person who has committed 100 crimes. It is the offended who determines how severe your crimes are to him i.e. It is the offended that can rightfully say who is good and who is not.

In the case where the offended party has decided to forgive both you - Mr 1sin and Mr 100sins, If Mr 100sins accepts forgiveness, then he is justified and free to go. If you (Mr 1sin) on the other hand refuses to accept forgiveness because you are angry that Mr 100sins was forgiven, then that's unfortunate for you because you leave the judge no other choice than to punish you.

truthislight:
Now, Adam lived 930yrs. But we know that God one(1) day = 1000yrs 1. 2peter 3:8 = a day(1) with God = 1000yrs with man. 2: psalm 90:4, a day pass with God = 1000yrs with man 3. A judgement "DAY" set by God is: Acts 17:31 = 1000yrs judgement "DAY" to man Revelation 20:1-4. Adam lived for 930yrs less 1000yrs. less than a day the issue of night and day is relative cus it is a function of the planet rotating as it goes round the sun and God see all irrespective of the country/continent.

hahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahhahahhahahha. . . Did you say Adam lived 930years Mehn, you are worse than a slowpoke to believe such an exaggeration. The bible is rife with hyperbolic statements for effects, only a dunce will take statements such as this literally. Do you know what 930years is? Brouhahahahahahhahahahahhahaha. . This guy is fucking hilarious, mehn.
By the way, who told you this: God or Adam, considering he was the first Man on earth. . Lol
you better drop that bible, it is fucking with your mind kid!

thehomer:

I don't need to do that, I can simply show that he didn't need to create the fruit.



I don't even think there was a garden of Eden. As far as I'm concerned, it is just one other myth.



Adam won't have needed that instruction if there was no fruit.



With respect to the issue in bold, are you saying the contradiction is null and void or that the understanding is null and void?

There is no smoke without fire.

Ignore the fire, then you will end up with all sort of explanation/reason as being responsible for the smoke.

Can such assumptions be correct?

By the way, I have always wondered, who created Satan? God?
If the answer is yes. My next question is why? Besides, if that is the case, it appears this particular creation of his is too powerful for him to curtail, so he just had to send him packing and gave him his own abode in "Hell", right?
I wonder why he did not extend his "unconditional love to this creation of his", he wont even send his only "begotten Son" Jesus to be beaten to a pulp and killed by him just so Satan can understand the enormity of God's anger against him.
By the way, between Satan and Adam, who was first created? Everyone seems to be obsessed with God and Jesus and only remenber Satan the bad guy when something goes wrong, yet you expect Satan to be reasonble with you all?
With all the badness credited to this Satan guy, it appears he is just as strong if not stronger than God. He causes so much headache to God that God had to kill his son in a rage to appease himself right? Oh, I get it, Jesus died, went to hell on a three-days vacation, collected the key that God forgot to collect from him when he was butt-kicked outta heaven for wanting thesame kind of attention like God. My conclusions, Those two are Frigging Egomaniacs playing practical jokes on human beings. . Lol

Mr_Anony:
I'll give you another definiton from dictionary.com.....which is Atonement.

1.satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.

Without a system of atonement, you cannot have justice.

Now that said, I want to put to you that your problem is not with the justice system but the means of atonement however what you are failing to realize is that the acceptable means of atonement is determined by the one who has been offended (in this case the judge) and not the offender.
If it is then that the offender is offered forgiveness and he rejects it, then it is only fair that the offender be punished with the highest severity.

Under Christianity, my problem is with both of them. Christian justice punishes a man for the crimes of another and claims that forgiveness is adequate atonement for all wronged parties for all crimes. The judge even in Christianity isn't the only one offended. When someone is tortured, is isn't only the judge that is offended.

Mr_Anony:
Now about what a good person is: Basically you've said if a person has done more good than bad, then such a person is a good person.

What you have failed to consider is that the magnitude of a crime can only best be determined by the aggrieved and not the offender.

I have considered that but I didn't say that the magnitude was being determined by the offender.

Mr_Anony:
I'll put to you that if you commit only one crime, you are a criminal and justice demands that you must pay for that crime same as the person who has committed 100 crimes. It is the offended who determines how severe your crimes are to him i.e. It is the offended that can rightfully say who is good and who is not.

Actually, justice demands that the punishment should fit the crime. If the offended decrees that the punishment shouldn't fit the crime, then that person cannot say who is good or not. The offended doesn't have free reign in determining how severe people's crimes are to him. Especially if he is unaffected in any way.

Mr_Anony:
In the case where the offended party has decided to forgive both you - Mr 1sin and Mr 100sins, If Mr 100sins accepts forgiveness, then he is justified and free to go. If you (Mr 1sin) on the other hand refuses to accept forgiveness because you are angry that Mr 100sins was forgiven, then that's unfortunate for you because you leave the judge no other choice than to punish you.

The offended party forgiving all sins and punishing someone else for them is simply unjust. In fact, that is the meaning of injustice. Not punishing people who deserve it or punishing people more severely than they deserve.

You've still not said anything about my prisoner on death row example.

thehomer:

Under Christianity, my problem is with both of them. Christian justice punishes a man for the crimes of another and claims that forgiveness is adequate atonement for all wronged parties for all crimes. The judge even in Christianity isn't the only one offended. When someone is tortured, is isn't only the judge that is offended.

I have considered that but I didn't say that the magnitude was being determined by the offender.

Actually, justice demands that the punishment should fit the crime. If the offended decrees that the punishment shouldn't fit the crime, then that person cannot say who is good or not. The offended doesn't have free reign in determining how severe people's crimes are to him. Especially if he is unaffected in any way.

The offended party forgiving all sins and punishing someone else for them is simply unjust. In fact, that is the meaning of injustice. Not punishing people who deserve it or punishing people more severely than they deserve.

You've still not said anything about my prisoner on death row example.

Your death row man was Mr 100sins while you are the Mr 1sin in the analogy. The point is that forgiveness has been granted to both of you.
Mr 100sins has accepted forgiveness.
Where you refuse to accept forgiveness, then it follows that you must now pay full price for your sins.

Mr_Anony:
Your death row man was Mr 100sins while you are the Mr 1sin in the analogy. The point is that forgiveness has been granted to both of you.
Mr 100sins has accepted forgiveness.
Where you refuse to accept forgiveness, then it follows that you must now pay full price for your sins.

And my point is that the judge who wasn't harmed, who cannot even be harmed is in no position to forgive. If a person steals from someone, the person who forgives is the victim and not the person passing the sentence.

If you say that someone who is executed for committing mass murder is a good person because of this declaration while someone whose only crime was stealing a loaf of bread to feed himself and his hungry sister before being killed is a bad person, then the problem lies with your conception of what it means to be a good or bad person. Your conception of being good or bad is divorced from what people actually do.

thehomer:

And my point is that the judge who wasn't harmed, who cannot even be harmed is in no position to forgive. If a person steals from someone, the person who forgives is the victim and not the person passing the sentence.

I never said "harmed", I said "offended"

If you say that someone who is executed for committing mass murder is a good person because of this declaration while someone whose only crime was stealing a loaf of bread to feed himself and his hungry sister before being killed is a bad person, then the problem lies with your conception of what it means to be a good or bad person. Your conception of being good or bad is divorced from what people actually do.

If the only evil you have ever done in your life is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry sister, Then you my friend are a saint.

.......and I say: based on what people actually do, no one is a good person.

Mr_Anony:
I never said "harmed", I said "offended"

Being offended doesn't mean you have a say in forgiving someone.

Mr_Anony:
If the only evil you have ever done in your life is stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry sister, Then you my friend are a saint.

Well I'm not dead yet.

Mr_Anony:
.......and I say: based on what people actually do, no one is a good person.

Then based on your conception, there is no point in trying to group people into good or bad.

Ah, for once, I am full with thehomer on this issue o.

Nobody can become "good", "forgiven" or "blameless" merely by accepting "Jesus" as his "personal lord and saviour" No one. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Jesus himself said so. It cannot happen.

This touches on the issues in "Succinctly Anony" and so i think we should do that phone recording and post here sooner rather than later.

rhymz: By the way, I have always wondered, who created Satan? God?
If the answer is yes. My next question is why? Besides, if that is the case, it appears this particular creation of his is too powerful for him to curtail, so he just had to send him packing and gave him his own abode in "Hell", right?
I wonder why he did not extend his "unconditional love to this creation of his", he wont even send his only "begotten Son" Jesus to be beaten to a pulp and killed by him just so Satan can understand the enormity of God's anger against him.
By the way, between Satan and Adam, who was first created? Everyone seems to be obsessed with God and Jesus and only remenber Satan the bad guy when something goes wrong, yet you expect Satan to be reasonble with you all?
With all the badness credited to this Satan guy, it appears he is just as strong if not stronger than God. He causes so much headache to God that God had to kill his son in a rage to appease himself right? Oh, I get it, Jesus died, went to hell on a three-days vacation, collected the key that God forgot to collect from him when he was butt-kicked outta heaven for wanting thesame kind of attention like God. My conclusions, Those two are Frigging Egomaniacs playing practical jokes on human beings. . Lol

Satan is the perfect fall guy to cover god's many short commings, especially when both are imaginary.

Deep Sight:
Ah, for once, I am full with thehomer on this issue o.

Nobody can become "good", "forgiven" or "blameless" merely by accepting "Jesus" as his "personal lord and saviour" No one. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Jesus himself said so. It cannot happen.

This touches on the issues in "Succinctly Anony" and so i think we should do that phone recording and post here sooner rather than later.

Yeah.
Jesus, the intermittent and eternal windshield wiper, always wiping away sins and absolving christians of personal responsibility.
Jesus, the ultimate unlimited, platinum, get-out-of-jail card.

Again, talk about moral ambiguity for a group who claim be inheritors and possessors of highest morality!

plaetton:

Yeah.
Jesus, the intermittent and eternal windshield wiper, always wiping away sins and absolving christians of personal responsibility.
Jesus, the ultimate unlimited, platinum, get-out-of-jail card.

Again, talk about moral ambiguity for a group who claim be inheritors and possessors of highest morality!

And it is actually a VERY dangerous teaching because it leads many Christians to fail to recognize the importance of personal responsibility for their actions and deeds!

Deep Sight:

And it is actually a VERY dangerous teaching because it leads many Christians to fail to recognize the importance of personal responsibility for their actions and deeds!

YES.
And that, my friend, are root causes of most of the social ills that have befallen and threaten the very fabrics community and society

^^^^^
I dare to say that this issue of moral ambiguity is probably the main reasons early christians were persecuted in Rome.

Rome was mishmash of different religions, so the introduction of a new one would have attracted little attention.
The problem with the nascent christianity at that time, was, the fact that the christians were seen as a group that sought to pervert the strict moral and ethic codes of the society, especially with the forgiveness and slate-wiping allure of Jesus.

The fact that they welcomed into their midst sinners and criminals of all sorts was very discomforting to the roman authorities.
Whereas existing religions,schools of philosophy and brotherhoods opened their memberships to people of high virtue and moral standing, these new interlopers, called christians, were doing the opposite by inviting among their fold,people of low virtue and moral standing.

In time, no, this provoked the ire of the Roman authorities who vowed to stamp out what seemed then, like a bad virus.

Deep Sight:

And it is actually a VERY dangerous teaching because it leads many Christians to fail to recognize the importance of personal responsibility for their actions and deeds!

blame Mr Paul who came up with the claptrap of faith abi na grace without work.
In most of his epistles, the guy was always talking about salvation through believing in the crucifixion and ressurection of christ whose teaching he described as elementary.
“Therefore let us abandon the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to more maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works but of faith toward God” – Hebrew 6:1
In other words, Jesus Christ was yarning opkata all along, he Paul was going to teach christians a higer level of Knowledge about thesame Christ whose teachings he described as elementary.
He described the observance of Judaic Law as dead work i.e actively observing the commandments passed to Moses like Muslims do is irrelevant. Thats the difference between Muslims and Christians. Muslims believe in work and christians damn the work but rather concentrate on believong in the fairytale of Jesus' death story as a way to get salvation. And you wonder why christians know little or nothing about their own religion besides the hogwash their bible wielding show men called pastor spew to them.
See Paul again giving christian the false belief of faith without work:
“For all who rely on works of the law are cursed” – Galatians 3:10 “For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” – Rom 3:20 “For we believe that a man is justified by faith even without works of law” – Romans 3:28
Today's Christianity solely rely on this ideology, that is why truthislite and the other Christian robots can tell others that unless you believe in Jesus saving fron some sin you don't know about, you are condemned for life. They keep defiling every boundary of logic just to make accommodation for their "fairy tale faith based belief system". Imagine somebody trying so hard to convince me that some Jesus died for Me for sins some stranger commited. I send am messege ni?
Whoever the writers of the Pauline epistles is, he was obviously was a gnostic christian, his version of christ was not the version in the narratives of the gospels of Mathew, mark, luke and John. Paul was always talking about a Jesus similar to the god-men of his time. Yet the bible is a book that contains the inerrant words of God.. .bullshit.
What Paul's teaching brought was the excuse for all manner of behaviour to be condoled by merely believing in Christ. You do not have to live or observe any set of moral codes, all you need to do is to believe in Jesus and your slate is clean. Even if you killed somebody before, you dont have to serve any jail term, your sins are forgiven so long as you believe in the christian God.
Take another verse from thesame Pauline epistles and tell me why anyone should be bothered about observing any law or improving one's self:
“To one who does not work (by the law) but trusts him who justifies the ungodly , his faith is reckoned as righteousness” – Rom 4:5

rhymz: blame Mr Paul who came up with the claptrap of faith abi na grace without work.
In most of his epistles, the guy was always talking about salvation through believing in the crucifixion and ressurection of christ whose teaching he described as elementary.
“Therefore let us abandon the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to more maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works but of faith toward God” – Hebrew 6:1
In other words, Jesus Christ was yarning opkata all along, he Paul was going to teach christians a higer level of Knowledge about thesame Christ whose teachings he described as elementary.
He described the observance of Judaic Law as dead work i.e actively observing the commandments passed to Moses like Muslims do is irrelevant. Thats the difference between Muslims and Christians. Muslims believe in work and christians damn the work but rather concentrate on believong in the fairytale of Jesus' death story as a way to get salvation. And you wonder why christians know little or nothing about their own religion besides the hogwash their bible wielding show men called pastor spew to them.
See Paul again giving christian the false belief of faith without work:
“For all who rely on works of the law are cursed” – Galatians 3:10 “For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” – Rom 3:20 “For we believe that a man is justified by faith even without works of law” – Romans 3:28
Today's Christianity solely rely on this ideology, that is why truthislite and the other Christian robots can tell others that unless you believe in Jesus saving fron some sin you don't know about, you are condemned for life. They keep defiling every boundary of logic just to make accommodation for their "fairy tale faith based belief system". Imagine somebody trying so hard to convince me that some Jesus died for Me for sins some stranger commited. I send am messege ni?
Whoever the writers of the Pauline epistles is, he was obviously was a gnostic christian, his version of christ was not the version in the narratives of the gospels of Mathew, mark, luke and John. Paul was always talking about a Jesus similar to the god-men of his time. Yet the bible is a book that contains the inerrant words of God.. .bullshit.

yeah.
They forget that Paul was scorned by early followers of Jesus because Paul had perverted the teachings of jesus.

plaetton:

yeah.
They forget that Paul was scorned by early followers of Jesus because Paul had perverted the teachings of jesus.

unfortunately today's Christians base their entire dogma and worship system on the gnostic or heretic teachings of Paul.