LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI did try to warn you all.Originally Posted by yamangman
I did try to warn you all.
...so your saying that He decided to punish man by bringing about :-16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return
* the existence of the pharynx, a passage used for both ingestion and respiration, with the consequent drastic increase in the risk of choking.
* the urinary tract in the human male, especially the unnecessary passage of the urethra through the prostate gland. As the prostate almost always grows with age, it eventually compresses the urethra and often makes urination difficult or even impossible.
* barely used nerves and muscles (e.g. Plantaris muscle) that are missing in part of the human population and are routinely harvested as spare parts if needed during operations.
* intricate reproductive devices in orchids, apparently constructed from components commonly used for different purposes in other flowers.
* the use by pandas of their enlarged radial sesamoid bones in a manner similar to how other creatures use thumbs.
* the pointless existence of the appendix in humans, and the corresponding potentially fatal condition of appendicitis
* the seemingly "backward-facing" arrangement of photoreceptors (and the related blind spots) within the retinas of many organisms, including all mammals.
* portions of DNA — termed "junk" DNA — that are claimed not to serve any purpose.
* photosynthetic plants that reflect green light, even though the sun's peak output is at this wavelength. A more optimal system of photosynthesis would use the entire solar spectrum, thus resulting in black plants.
* the structure of the human eye. The retina is "inside out" in that nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as in invertebrate species. Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice. [1]
* crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and yet we share their tooth set.
+countless other 'bad designs'
....and that previously all this would have been perfect and not flawed? Or do you think that this omniscient and omnipotent god got it all wrong in the first place? Is your perfect god flawed or do you think just maybe he had bugger all to do with it because he doesn't exist?
I can't wait for humankind to meet aliens or discover life on another planet. Doesn't seem to be much in the bible about extra-terestrial life but I'm sure that the beleivers will argue that ET was made by God (but not in his image, cos that's our privilege right). I wonder what ET has to say about where or how he originated.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Christians would just conveniently 'forget' the own image paart, and start preaching to the aliens.. converting them from their 'science' that led to them travelling the stars.
weak. thought you better than that
lol.
He knew you would say that before the world was built.
likewise He knew mankind would fail. Christ knew He'd have to die on the cross because people would prove so treacherous, before they came into existence. The corruption in design was not a sudden, unexpected, unanticipated event. It taints everything.
you watch too much TV. Invasion, right?
hoping they'll arrive to save you from yourself? Hoping they'll have some Big Answer to save humanity from both global warming and its enthusiastic drive to self destruction?
dream on.
btw, lobotomies are already available and have been for some time.
So you're arguing the omniscient/omnipresent corner. If He knows everything that ever happened and will ever happen then how can He exert free will? Free will and being 'all knowing' are mutually exclusive. Therefore either He's not 'all knowing' or doesn't have free will. Which is it?
Last edited by obvious; 22-01-2006 at 11:15 PM.
Guys why bother any longer? Reasonable arguments are no match for utter convenience - after all what Christianity is.
To err is human. To really foul things up ... you need a computer.
I asume that you are unaware that most of those laws mentioned above applied only to the Jews before Jesus came to fullfill the law.
They do not directly apply to Christains today, only those that are repeated in the new testament.
One example is that before Jesus came the Jews were not allowed to eat certain foods which were deemed unclean.
After Jesus came and fulfilled the law, God commanded that all animals could now be used for food.
This symbolised that salvation was no longer just for the Jews but that all could now come to Christ for salvation.
Last edited by Stevo; 23-01-2006 at 12:01 AM.
is late, so will quote from someone else. have snipped it for brevity, but link found here :
>>>>
Christian doctrine holds that God is all knowing (1 John 3:20), and humans have free will (Deuteronomy 30:19). however... skeptics raise an objection to these points several times. the basic logic behind their arguments is this:
- A being with free will, given two options A and B, can freely choose between A and B.
- God is omniscient (all-knowing).
- God knows I will choose A.
- God cannot be wrong, since an omniscient being cannot have false knowledge.
- From 3 and 4, I will choose A and cannot choose B.
- From 1 and 5, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist.
(this) question...shows how even those who appeal to logic can have biases that blind them. Let's examine this argument and see if it follows logically.
Premises 1 and 2 in (the) outline above are the main premises to the argument and are not disputed. The Christian worldview argues that every human being is a free moral agent and is capable of making choices simply by exercising their will, not under compulsion or because of instinct. Also, it is a long held doctrine of Christianity that God is all-knowing. The Bible says that God knows "the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)." For omniscience to be truly knowledgeable it must be correct knowledge, so premise number 4 is also granted.
However, point number 5 is where the logic falters. Those who argue in this manner make the mistake of thinking that because God possesses knowledge about a specific matter, then he has influenced it. That does not follow at all. Just because God can foresee which choice you will make, it does not mean you couldn't still freely choose the other option.
Let me give you an example. I have a five year old son. If I were to leave a chocolate chip cookie on the table about a hour before dinner time and my son was to walk by and see it, I know that he would pick up the cookie and eat it. I did not force him to make that decision. In fact, I don't even have to be in the room at all. I think I know my son well enough, though, to tell you that if I come back into the kitchen the cookie will be gone. His act was made completely free of my influence, but I knew what his actions would be.
In examining the argument, the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects. Omniscience and free will are not incompatible and it is a non-sequitor to claim otherwise.
<<<<
For those atheists / undecided who want to know more / have their objections to Christianity answered intellectually, you could do worse than googling for APOLOGETICS. The link I placed in the previous post refers to just such a site - check the topics on the left.
It's late so no problem that you didn't realise I was talking about the free will of God not the free will of man. How could God be able to exert His own free will if he already has knowledge of everything that will come to pass? Knowing the future precludes changing the future. It's a well known paradox. So is He impotent to change the way things will be or is He somewhat less than omniscient?
Edit: in any case the quoted position thatrequires that 'knows' be somehow redefined as 'doesn't really know at all'. For Christianity to claim that certain knowledge is somehow bendable is bizarre and to be frank, plainly ridiculous. It's a great big empty gaping hole in the foundation of your faith.the assumption is made in premise 3 that because God knows I will choose A somehow denies me the choice of B. That is the premise that Christianity rejects.
Last edited by obvious; 23-01-2006 at 12:37 AM.
Is making a statement in a book considered a fact by religious people? That's the crux of this argument as far as I can tell.
There's an old saying, "it's easy to know, much harder to understand...". My personal opinion is that religion is simply used to control people and possibly provided the answer to, "why are we here" for many people.
ROTFL!
nope, contrary to your assertion, that paradox is not well known. Personally have never come across itprobably me just being ignorant, of course.
I don't even begin to pretend to define the limits & contraints that God has placed on Himself from my own limited knowledge. I know the important stuff:
1) that He exists
2) that He loves me (and you, too, believe it or not)
3) that He wants my happiness
4) that He expects me to use my brain (yes, you're probably going to say 1 & 4 are mutually exclusive)
5) but that He doesn't expect me to know everything about Him, nor do I pretend I could.
I DON'T go around worrying or hassling myself with God's free will. In a similar vein, I don't go around worrying whether my perception is a massive hallucination because frankly, it doesn't make any difference. On the other hand, there are a number of philosophers who have virtually reduced themselves to lumps of quivering green jelly getting themselves into a state about such issues. Go ahead.
sorry, that doesn't make any sense. If you were able to use venerable time machine to put yourself a day into the future, would the fact that you know (for example) that I'm going to post certain words on this forum at a certain time etc deny me the choice over those words as I write them, or that I would write them at all? No.in any case the quoted position that requires that 'knows' be somehow redefined as 'doesn't really know at all'.
nope. Only in your eyes. Your knowledge, too, is limited.For Christianity to claim that certain knowledge is somehow bendable is bizarre and to be frank, plainly ridiculous. It's a great big empty gaping hole in the foundation of your faith.
Let's discuss a quick point:
You assert that God does not exist. You do not KNOW this, but all the logic you have considered leads you to believe this is true.
On the other hand, I KNOW God exists, most fundamentally from the relationship (i.e. 2 way) that I have with Him. So, where does that leave me when you posit such questions, eg the free will of God? In no worse place. Makes me wonder, sure, since hadn't considered the point before, but am also happy to say simply that I don't know.
I expect and hope you to use your brain, but I am not concerned about scoring points. I AM concerned about your future, so regardless of what you believe, that doesn't stop me praying for your happiness, your peace of mind, and most of all, your eventual relationship with Christ.
am also against being 'religious', or pursuing 'religion'. I AM totally in favour of the pursuit of Truth. Yes, I believe in an objective Truth even though I will only ever have a subjective intepretation of it. As you know 2 + 2 = 4 to be the truth, I know Christ to be the Truth. As real, yes.
Whether to construe a statement in a book as fact is not as simple as it seems. That's why (for eg) there are different denominations in Christianity. Not an admirable state of affairs when it leads to conflict but it illustrates that even within the set of believers, there is debate about what constitutes a fact. This does not mean there are no facts, but that there isn't simply a blind adherence to certain understandings, in Christianity. There are issues of context, of meaning, of intention, etc.
Here's something you may or may not be aware of: When someone reads the Bible, there are 2 broad ways of doing so:
1) as a reader (regardless of whether a Christian or not)
2) where one is lead by the Holy Spirit
those are two very different approaches. With the former, one can use the words therein to assert anything, to justify anything, however the ego desires. Look at history etc etc.
EVERY time a Christian reads the Bible, he/she has to do so consciously under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in order to prevent the ego from taking centre stage.
otherwise, the Bible just reads as a book. Yes, the most popular in history etc, but not one that will be accessible.
believe me or not, is up to you. Am simply explaining the crucial detail.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote