This is all very good. PrettyH, they are not contradictions to you but truths. Fair enough. What we ask is that you share those salient truths with us. Take us out of our ignorance and win some souls for God. Instead of getting upset et al, why dont you try explaining?

elbaron:

This is all very good. PrettyH, they are not contradictions to you but truths. Fair enough. What we ask is that you share those salient truths with us. Take us out of our ignorance and win some souls for God. Instead of getting upset et al, why don't you try explaining?

Explaining implies some intellectual effort. I'm affraid PrettyH has placed herself beyond that reality already.
Blessed are the meek, because they shall inherit the earth. Case closed

To those who say there's no God, I want to ask you this question:

HOW DO YOU THINK THE IDEA ABOUT GOD CAME INTO EXISTENCE AT ALL?

nferyn:

Explaining implies some intellectual effort. I'm affraid PrettyH has placed herself beyond that reality already.
Blessed are the meek, because they shall inherit the earth. Case closed

Nferyn ,
Everytime i read ur posts, u make me laugh.

elbaron:

This is all very good. PrettyH, they are not contradictions to you but truths. Fair enough. What we ask is that you share those salient truths with us. Take us out of our ignorance and win some souls for God. Instead of getting upset et al, why don't you try explaining?

I don't get upset, point of correction.

To those who say there's no God, I want to ask you this question:

HOW DO YOU THINK THE IDEA ABOUT GOD CAME INTO EXISTENCE AT ALL?

nferyn, its the opium of the lazy mind, isnt it?

i will reply to your asinine suggestions according to their order of appearance
1 (a) i am a science student and can possibly explain that in terms of photons or energy. light is a form of energy and energy is needed to start ANY reaction or process.
(b) if you were in a dark room all day would you still use the sun to know when the day has passed or a watch? does god need eyes to tell the time? is time dependent on planetary bodies or independent of them?
(c) they were simply time divisions (first half and second half). the hebrew day started in the evening of the previous dayi.e night and day not day and night.

2. the statement that the sun was not created until that time simply represents the fact that it had not yet shone on the earth. we are told there was a firmament covering the face of the heavens. light could not easily get through. that does not mean there were no other forms of light.

3A the creation attempts should be considered in terms of the emergence of the different bodies not in terms of their actual creation. GET THIS POINT >THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK THOUGH IT HAS BASIC SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE>
B Let me tell you that some scientists believe the speed of light was much faster and has changed significantly over time since the "BIG BANG".

4 Geological science is not exact about the emergence of species. Till today there is no agreement on when the first cell actually arrived. if i stand up in a biological or geological convention and claim
it happened 2 or 3 billion years ago there are people who would support me so that is not a point and that is faulty logic (appeal to authority).

5 same as for 4

6same as for 4

7 what science? Radio-carbon dating which you rely on is not exact. they postulate the periods of emergence of the different species based on fossils they found. It is a flawed method. newly solidified lava has been dated millions of years old. so that is not an issue.

8i don't know your version of the bible but mine does not say the birds should come out of the water. He creates the fish then the birds.

10 We are not CARNIVOROUS, we are OMNIVOROUS(BOTH MEAT AND HERBS). mind you, wounded dogs have been known to eat medicinal plants. TALLIES PERFECTLY

11 Hebrews refer to God in the masculine because it is believed man was created first in the image of God. So that is obviously dumb. He does not procreate. he creates. NOT A CONTRADICTION

12 you obviously know very little about the science which you preach. Geology(which you keep referring to) claims that the climatic zones were much different in the past man migrated during the ice age and it is only logical that animals did too. Isreal was a forested region in the past not the dry land it currently is. read about the reforestation project in isreal. Has it occured to you that the deforestation might have had an effect on the climate in that region?we know the Sahara was not always as big as it currently is. Same goes for other deserts.

13 a-h mathematical inaccuracies are human, nowhere is it said that God directly wrote the scriptures. So any accuracy does not change the message.


9 there's proof for a young earth. (soon in another post)

some disproofs of evolutionary proofs

1. the appendix is not vestigeal but a part of the immune system though you can live without it. it reduces risk of leukemia, hodgkin's disease etc

2. coccyx or tail bone is not vestigeal but is a support for some pelvic muscles (nine in fact).

coccyx or tail bone is not vestigeal but is a support for some pelvic muscles (nine in fact).

please o, no be say i wan put mouth for wetin no concern me o but i just want to say that the coccyx is both vestigial and serves as an attachment for pelvic musles.

the appendix is not vestigeal but a part of the immune system though you can live without it. it reduces risk of leukemia, hodgkin's disease etc

the appendix is indeed a vestigial tissue---it however contains some lymphoid cells


However this does not validate evolution.nor contradict God's word, it only lends proof to his omniscience.

kodewrita, nice attempt. Let's start from the begining

(b) if you were in a dark room all day would you still use the sun to know when the day has passed or a watch? does god need eyes to tell the time? is time dependent on planetary bodies or independent of them?

The answer to that is no. You know why? Because you loose your sense of time when u are in dark room. So if there was no moon or sun till the 4th day, there would have been no sense of time. So nobody would have known when is the first or fourth day. And yes, God needs eyes to tell the time. God created everything on earth and that includes time, everything he gave us is what he knows we need and would have tested or experimented.Is time dependent on planetary bodies? Time is dependent on the revolution of the earth around the sun, if the sun is not a planetary body, I dont know what else is. If God did not need eyes (etc) to tell the time, how did he do it? Give me a logical answer and let's not go the omni whatever route again.

2. the statement that the sun was not created until that time simply represents the fact that it had not yet shone on the earth. we are told there was a firmament covering the face of the heavens. light could not easily get through. that does not mean there were no other forms of light.

Make up your mind. Was it created on the 4th day or was it created earlier only it did not shine through. The bible says specifically that on the fourth day God created the sun. Simple. He did not say the sun shone through on the fourth day. Is this not simple again?

Do me a favor and let's look at this realistically

elbaron:

The answer to that is no. You know why? Because you loose your sense of time when u are in dark room. So if there was no moon or sun till the 4th day, there would have been no sense of time. So nobody would have known when is the first or fourth day. And yes, God needs eyes to tell the time. God created everything on earth and that includes time, everything he gave us is what he knows we need and would have tested or experimented.Is time dependent on planetary bodies? Time is dependent on the revolution of the earth around the sun, if the sun is not a planetary body, I don't know what else is. If God did not need eyes (etc) to tell the time, how did he do it? Give me a logical answer and let's not go the omni whatever route again.

You fail to realise that we're talking about God here. You can't use what you know or what science has taught you to disprove the sovereignty of God.

@ kodewrita
Can you make a coherent argument , based on identifying the points you are addressing. There's no point in debating something that is so vague as your post.

1. What's your point?
2. What are you trying to prove/disprove?
3. What positive case are you trying to make here?
4. Which points, made by whom are you addressing? Can you use relevant quotes?
5. Make an exact, precise case for your so called disproofs of evolution or radio-carbon dating, so that I can address them one by one.
6. What exactly is your scientific background? Your post does not seem to indicate that you have passed many exams. Of course, it can be laziness as well.

Nferyn, I think he was answering the questions asked by the Original Poster in his first post.

@Goodguy, what do you suggest we use in proving the sovereignty of God? I thought this post was about the contradictions contained in the bible? Would like to clarify those issues? I am sure we can get into another debate as to the sovereignty or otherwise of God if one (as portrayed by organised religion) exists.

I suggest we stop arguing about whether God exists or not.

I agree with you with all my heart. Instead of arguing, let us present reasonable facts or events or other pieces of evidence supporting our positions.

It will still lead to arguments.

@Goodguy, I think it will lead to a better quality debate as against an arguement. Dont you think?

What I see as a proof/evidence is actually nonsensical to you. So what's the point trying to drag the issue further?

because they are trying to quieten their conscience that kept screaming "there is a God is heaven that rules in the affairs of men on earth"

nicetohave:

because they are trying to quieten their conscience that kept screaming "there is a God is heaven that rules in the affairs of men on earth"

This is completely ridiculous. Use you projections of fear on yourself, will you.
Never in my life have I had the thought in my head that there is or could be something as a god. The idea is so farfetched that it makes me wonder about all those that do believe in a supreme being. It is the ultimate expression of self-deceit.

This is completely ridiculous. Use you projections of fear on yourself, will you.
Never in my life have I had the thought in my head that there is or could be something as a god. The idea is so farfetched that it makes me wonder about all those that do believe in a supreme being. It is the ultimate expression of self-deceit.

Well the voice can be heard far above even armies of suggestion in your mind, even when it is just a whisper..........but because you said you have never conceived it, then so be it

nicetohave:

Well the voice can be heard far above even armies of suggestion in your mind, even when it is just a whisper..........but because you said you have never conceived it, then so be it

You are projecting your own experiences on me.

How do you know that? anyway continue to ignore it then, i mean the word of God that is true and eternal.

@nferyn i was answering the first poster. As to what i was trying to disprove. his articles ranged were based on mathematical inconsistencies observed and so-called differences from science which i tried to correct. 10q


as to my scientific background, while i might still be an undergraduate computer science student that does not stop me from reading ANYTHING that comes my way. I subscribe to all physics and programming mags i come across. "thank you".

as to my passing many exams. . i passed my cambridge a levels in physics and had an A in O level physics and B in my geography but i am smart enough to know that established science is not always right and i read not just recommended topics. I firmly believe in creation and i have read many articles providing scientific basis for that argument.

Its faulty logic to attack the messenger not the message. When i have the time(not everyone is jobless enough to sit in front of a pc when you can be doing serious work.) i will start a post on radio-carbon dating,proofs for a young earth and young universe and disproofs of the so-called proofs of evolution.

If I may ask, what is your own scientific background? As to whether the thought of a God never entered your mind, i find that preposterous to say the least.


@elbaron Why do you think he would need eyes? light is not the only way of measuring time. Time is independent of earth's planetary revolution. We are not just talking about the earth here but the whole universe of which the earth is one tiny insignificant body.

kodewrita:

@nferyn i was answering the first poster. As to what i was trying to disprove. his articles ranged were based on mathematical inconsistencies observed and so-called differences from science which i tried to correct. 10q

Goodguy already pointed in that direction. It wasn't clear as you didn't use quotes. Anyway, I stand corrected.

kodewrita:

as to my scientific background, while i might still be an undergraduate computer science student that does not stop me from reading ANYTHING that comes my way. I subscribe to all physics and programming mags i come across. "thank you".

I'm very happy to hear that. I hope you succeed in your quest for knowledge. Maybe you should subscribe to some magazines on biology, geology or other historical sciences as well. It might broaden your scope.

kodewrita:

as to my passing many exams. . i passed my cambridge a levels in physics and had an A in O level physics and B in my geography but i am smart enough to know that established science is not always right and i read not just recommended topics. I firmly believe in creation and i have read many articles providing scientific basis for that argument.

My bad. I made assumptions based solely on your posts. These did not show that you have extensively studied the subjects you were writing about.. Obviously established science is not always right for 100% on the facts. That knowledge gets updated constantly. Applying the scientific method though is currently the only way that our knowledge increases fundamentally. The fact that you believe in creation (obviously if creation is only a first-mover type of creation this criticism doesn't apply), and that you claim there is a scientific basis for creation, only points to a very sketchy knowledge of the scientific method.

kodewrita:

Its faulty logic to attack the messenger not the message.

It is not faulty logic, it has nothing to do with logic at all. It was bad manners and I appolise for that. Using arguments from autority is always a bad way of conducting a discussion. I got carried away because I've seen far too many people discussing issues they don't know the first thing about. Anyway, my sincere appologies for this misstep.

kodewrita:

When i have the time(not everyone is jobless enough to sit in front of a pc when you can be doing serious work.) i will start a post on radio-carbon dating,proofs for a young earth and young universe and disproofs of the so-called proofs of evolution.

Now, that's a serious ad hominem, but I'll let it pass, because I was the one starting the argument on a bad footing.
Anyway, using the term 'proof' in a scientific debate shows a lack of understanding of how science works. I hope it was just a slip of the tongue.
I would be very happy if you could bring said 'proofs' for a young earth. I am yet to see the first one that sticks.

kodewrita:

If I may ask, what is your own scientific background?

I have a Masters Degree in Communication Science. I have always been very interested in biology though and I hung out with a lot of the people from Physics Department at university. I was involved in the Study Circle Free Enquiry at the Brussels Free University, where we studied epistemiology and scientific methodologies quite extensively.

kodewrita:

As to whether the thought of a God never entered your mind, i find that preposterous to say the least.

If all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.
You may come from a theistic background or culture/sub-culture, I don't. The concept of a deity only makes sense if you've been exposed to it from a young age onward.

@Kodewrita, nice, very nice CV you have. So my post was based on mathematical inconsistencies? Very well. Would you mind quoting the mathematical laws with which my observations are inconsistent?

So you passed cambridge A level Physics? Congratulations. Kindly apply it to the original post with a view of making meaning out of it or otherwise. So all you did is A level physics. Let me tell you a little secret of life, A level physics is the most basic, strike that, it is the basic introduction to quantum physics and to make sense out of what I first posted, you need, my dear brother, much much more than an introduction to quantum physics as represented by A level physics. You need, as a matter of fact, knowledge and exposure to a much higher level of physics to do so. Please note that this level is not attained by subscribing to science magazines.

Time is independent of earth's planetary revolution

. Agreed, but how do you measure time? You obviously are not conversant with the laws of physics. Time is calculated by the revolution of the earth around the sun which occurs on a 24 hourly basis. I suggest you subscribe to more magazins to ascertain this fact. But come to think of it, the fact that you dont know this up until now tells me either of two things. (1) you never entered a physics class of whatever level, or (2) Somebody wrote the exams for you.

@Nferyn, I do not see what you are apologising for. You responded to a post by Kodewrita and made your assumptions based on the facts available to you. That is not starting off on a wrong foot. That is objective criticism based on available facts from his post.

@Kodewrita, I bet I have a better Job than you. But I understand what you mean when you say

(not everyone is jobless enough to sit in front of a pc when you can be doing serious work.)

. I agree with you completely, when you are doing menial jobs, I agree your job description may not leave you enough time to do any other thing. But when you run your own gig like I do and when the said gig is established enough that you are able to delegate authority and concentrate on the overall well being of the business as is my case as a Chief executive of a very successful medium sized business, then you have enough time to indulge your passions.

who no know go know.

@ elbaron
I try to be a little accommodating because otherwise the debate immediately stops. And to be honest, I really didn't want to go through his badly constructed, decontextualised English sentences. It would take me far longer just to understand what he's talking about than to have him debate the issues directly and reformulate what he's been writing.
I have little hope though that he will try to put his arguments in a more readable format

@elbaron, interesting start to your article. I'm still wondering whether you are merely being pedantic for amusement or are plain confused. Genesis 1:1-4, In the beginning God created the sky and the earth. The earth was empty and had no form. Darkness covered the ocean... Then God said let there be light and there was light. God saw that light was good, so did divided the light from darkness. God named the light day and the darkness night. Evening passed and morning came. This was the first day.

Genesis 1:14-15 Then God said, let there be lights IN THE SKY to separate day from night. These lights will be for signs, seasons, days, and years. they will be in the sky to give light to the earth. And it happened. (Everyday Study Edition).

So as you can see there was night and day from day one. On the fourth day, improvements galore! Let's now place the light (which is already separating day from night) in the sky above the earth to shine down on it for illumination. Let them also (in addition to telling night from day) be signs for seasons, years etc.  No contradiction here!

What I get from this is that God did indeed create man in his own image. He did not just click his heels together and hey presto, an already made world. It took seven days of planning and modifications.  Take you for instance, it must have taken you a while to write this exceedingly long article on biblical contradictions. You probably hammered out the bare bones first, then made amendments as it would appear, it did God.

Now, before you start throwing a lot of words beginning with OMNI- at me, imagine the following: You are playing toy soldiers or writing a screen play, you set the stage, the boundaries, the works. You know who dies and who wins. You may have changed the scenes/characters a few times but in the end it's your world. You are all the OMANI-S there are. BUT TO WHAT EXTENT?  You decide.

Now we are in a computer age, people are inventing games where the end is not certain. Games like grand theft auto gives you a choice to steal a car in which case you are persued by policemen with blazing guns.

God decided to throw in two things: free will and circumstances attached to each choice. He could have left the garden devoid of plants that made one loose their innocence. He could have placed it there and said nothing. For there to be free will there had to be choice. God said he has give them all the stuff in the garden which they could do with as they pleased. No conflict there. Then he shows them one that they are to stay away from and attached consequences for not doing so.

Question- Was he waiting to see if Adam or Eve will be curious enough to disobey Him or was it just a matter of time that someone comes along and parttake of the forbidden fruit?

Eitherway free will does not work without such alternatives.  Take present day events for instance, particularly a case sighted in yet another one of your long articles: A kid is frustrated enough to pick up a gun, go to his school and start shooting. He had free will he decides to point the gun and shoot at somebody. When he does so the person will die. As Innocent as he/she is. No sudden intervention on behave of the Innocent. Our actions/choices have consequences some very ugly. Hopefully others may learn from this.

It's a hell of a thing, this free will.  God obviously has the stomach to live with some of the ugly results of it on the innocent, el baron is totally confused by it and I, shredbaron am in awe of the extent to which God is going to preserve free will.

But ask yourself one question: would you rather be a zombie with no free will in a perfect world or make choices about your life your future?

Peace!

@Shredbaron, you are correct in your assumptions regarding me and my post. This point is that I am truely confused. So let's start from your explanations.

Genesis 1:14-15 Then God said, let there be lights IN THE SKY to separate day from night. These lights will be for signs, seasons, days, and years. they will be in the sky to give light to the earth. And it happened. (Everyday Study Edition).

And here is how you explain it

So as you can see there was night and day from day one. On the fourth day, improvements galore! Let's now place the light (which is already separating day from night) in the sky above the earth to shine down on it for illumination. Let them also (in addition to telling night from day) be signs for seasons, years etc.  No contradiction here!

Are you making sense to yourself? According to your acceptances, God created the sun and the moon on the first day to separate day from night (Genesis 1: 4-5). God named the light day and the darkness night. Which means that from the very first day there was already night and day. Evenly divided by God as he saw fit. Now as a rational thinking female, let me ask you a very simple question: Since darkness was already separated from light thereby creating day and night on the very first day, what was the essence of repeating the experiment on the 4th day? The biblical account represented in Genesis 1:14 states specifically that God commanded Lights to appear in Heaven (Your own version of the bible) to separate day from night and to be used as a landmark for identifying the seasons. Day and Night were already separated. Now what other lights do you know about that identifies seasons?

By the way, you used the Everyday study edition of the bible as your point of reference. Genesis 1:14-15 of that edition did not say

Let's now place the light (which is already separating day from night) in the sky above the earth

. It says

Then God said: Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night........

. Nowhere in that account did God command that light be "placed", that would have meant that the said lights were already in existence and only needed a place to be placed. I suggest you either go back to your bible classes or get your pastor to explain. In the absense of this, kindly ask your parents to put you back in Elementary school or get reading glasses.

You claim that it took God 7 days of planning and modification to finish the earth? I humbly submit that you have never read the bible not once in your entire life. There is no single paragraph in the account of the "Creation" where it says anything was modified from what it originally was or do I need to define Modification to you as well?

Take you for instance, it must have taken you a while to write this exceedingly long article on biblical contradictions. You probably hammered out the bare bones first, then made amendments as it would appear, it did God.

. Reading is obviously not one of your stronger points. Go back to the initial article and READ it. All I did was quote passages of the bible that did not make sense. Now those passages are self explanatory and sufficient in themselves not to be taken in conjunction with any other passage (s)

Now, before you start throwing a lot of words beginning with OMNI- at me, imagine the following: You are playing toy soldiers or writing a screen play, you set the stage, the boundaries, the works. You know who dies and who wins. You may have changed the scenes/characters a few times but in the end it's your world. You are all the OMANI-S there are. BUT TO WHAT EXTENT?  You decide.

. You and I who is getting confused here? Let us take your toy soldier example: I happen to be a programmer as well so I understand where you are coming from but the basic difference as relates to God is as follows: My green toy soldier I have already decided would be the bad guy who will be slaughtered at the end of the day and the white one is the one I have decided will carry the day, Now let us take this assumption further and say that I have control of the joystick being the controlling force of this green guy but I do not take him anywhere close to the yellow line so he continues fighting the white guy and I know for a fact that his end is doomed and he will certainly die and he does certainly die as i originally intended him to.

Let us bring this closer home and apply it to God. So he knows exactly what he is doing and knows the ones who will perish and the ones who will survive, what wickedness, my dear, is that? Is this the kind of God your religion teaches you exists. What is the essence of creating a guy whose fate is He knows to be destruction? Let us say that in my game I create a line and in a specific line of my code, I state that the Green guy will become one of the good guys when and if he crosses the yellow line, however, I have already programed him never to go near the yellow line not to talk of crossing it, does this describe your God and the said Garden of Eden?

Question- Was he waiting to see if Adam or Eve will be curious enough to disobey Him or was it just a matter of time that someone comes along and parttake of the forbidden fruit?

. This is a God who is all knowing, which means that before he created Adam, he already knew what they will do and when they will do it, if he knew all this and he knew the serpent will tempt them into eating it, the question now will be: Why did he leave the tree there? Free will and choice, I hear you say, if this were to be correct, then does it not negate the theory of his omni-potence? Do you guys actually think about these things before you swallow them hook, line and sinker?

Eitherway free will does not work without such alternatives.  Take present day events for instance, particularly a case sighted in yet another one of your long articles: A kid is frustrated enough to pick up a gun, go to his school and start shooting. He had free will he decides to point the gun and shoot at somebody. When he does so the person will die. As Innocent as he/she is. No sudden intervention on behave of the Innocent. Our actions/choices have consequences some very ugly. Hopefully others may learn from this.

. Rubbish, in that article, this woman was praying to God believing as Jesus had promised her that if she prays God will answer and the said Jesus according to your beliefs was right at that moment, sitting at the right side of God. Why didn't God send a meteor to strick down the young man and save this saintly woman and ten of her pupils from certain death? Or does your God answer your prayers only when it suits him?

Your thinking is totally inconsistent with your believes. An Oxymoron you say? Read your post again and tell me whether you were lucid at the time of writting or not. By the way, what sort of a name is "Shredbaron"? Someday soon there would be "Shrednferyn". Christians!!!

@elbaron - You are right is assuming that I did not read your whole long article. A bunch of quotes from various parts of the bible on similar subjects telling varied stories in your opinion does not make for interesting reading.  I lost interest when you started calculating how many years had passed since creation and  when you decided based on the thinnest thread of an argument that the world must be about 6000yrs old suggesting no man lived in 4000 BC. Your argument about the first and forth days of creation is what I was responding to. Now you say in your response to mine and I quote:

Are you making sense to yourself? According to your acceptances, God created the sun and the moon on the first day to separate day from night (Genesis 1: 4-5). God named the light day and the darkness night. Which means that from the very first day there was already night and day. Evenly divided by God as he saw fit. Now as a rational thinking female, let me ask you a very simple question: Since darkness was already separated from light thereby creating day and night on the very first day, what was the essence of repeating the experiment on the 4th day? The biblical account represented in Genesis 1:14 states specifically that God commanded Lights to appear in Heaven (Your own version of the bible) to separate day from night and to be used as a landmark for identifying the seasons. Day and Night were already separated. Now what other lights do you know about that identifies seasons?

You must be very impatient. I suggest to you that your whole response was fuelled by the fact that I dared call you pedantic and confused. Let's drop the ego for a minute and ponder some of these weighty issues. 

Why does there have to have been a sun and a moon on the first day for there to be night and day? God said let there be and so there was. Now today science has explained how light changes into darkness and darkness into light. This, science says is due to the revolutions of the earth around the sun and from the fourth day onward when the sun and the moon where created this could easily be the case. Bible says the day and night were created on day one. No scientist there to explain what cosmic forces made that happen in those 3 days. On day four when the sun, the moon and the stars were being created God said let there be light in the sky to
separate the day from the night. Repetitious Maybe. I noticed while reading the same passages that whereas on the first day the light was not commanded to be in the sky, on the fourth day it was about being in the sky.

Now I am not holding myself up to be an expect in any of this which is why I threw the question -

Was he waiting to see if Adam or Eve will be curious enough to disobey Him or was it just a matter of time that someone comes along and parttakes of the forbidden fruit?

This was not a statement. It was a question. I don't actually think human free will can exist alongside God's omni-potence which is why I thrown this question to all in this forum.

Your response:

This is a God who is all knowing, which means that before he created Adam, he already knew what they will do and when they will do it, if he knew all this and he knew the serpent will tempt them into eating it, the question now will be: Why did he leave the tree there? Free will and choice, I hear you say, if this were to be correct, then does it not negate the theory of his omni-potence? Do you guys actually think about these things before you swallow them hook, line and sinker?

Would you care to try again? Like I said I'm in awe of the extent to which I think God is going to maintain human free will. Confused? You bet I am! Only reason most of us are in this forum. Shed some light is you can.

PS
Don't flatter yourself. Shredbaron has nothing to do with elboran. Full name is Baroness Shredder but that is a whole different story!!!

@Baronesshreder, there is no point debating with you. And if there is anyone here with a bloated ego, I think it would be you. As to the matter at hand, it is obviously out of your depths. As to your rejoinder about me not flattering myself by your choice of screen name, very funny, I am sure I have many more things to flatter myself about than your screen name. Have a nice day