InfraBlue wrote:The explanations of why omnipotence and omniscience are paradoxes with regard to the idea of free will is best explained by the
explanation I gave. You've only provided platitudes, rationalizations, and a requisite to believe in the Bible to circumvent these contradictions.
It is interesting how you and the quotes you reference in the Bible:
Quote:When my kids were growing up, I often gave them help with homework or some other problem. But once I showed them how to find the answer, I resisted any temptation to micro-manage their lives. That included spying on their privacy, even when it might have made my job 'easier'.
"Haven't you ever, for any reason, declined to do something which you had the power to do? Even if you had the right to do it?
and
Quote:Remember that Jesus pointed out that a loving father would not give a stone to a hungry child who asked for a fish.(Matthew 7:9)
anthropomorphize the idea of God.
We were created in God's image. Why wouldn't we reflect his qualities to a degree?
This is the way in which the bible describes God. I'm not asking you to believe any of it. But please don't create a semantic pigeonhole and assume that God will fit into it.
cicerone imposter wrote:The sacrifice was on behalf of man, but man doesn't need the sacrifice. Evidently god does, but that creates a problem with circular logic.
Where did this come from?
Intrepid wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:The sacrifice was on behalf of man, but man doesn't need the sacrifice. Evidently god does, but that creates a problem with circular logic.
Circular logic is also evident in the evolution theory.
After God created Adam and Eve, he gave them the commandment not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He did this in order than man could exercise his own free will, and to determine whether man would be obedient to him only. Then, the Devil misled Eve to disobedience. Thus, the first sin was created.
The wages of sin is death and sin causes separation from God. This separation is not a natural death, but rather a spiritual death. Adam and Eve had to leave the Garden of Eden. Natural death followed later.
Later, God sent his Son to offer redemption to the world. The new convenant was formed which replaced the old covenant. (The Old Testament that so many use for their arguments)
The law of the Old Testament was replaced by the way of grace, the law of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. By accepting the grace of Jesus Christ, man can achieve the righteousness which counts before God. With the new covenant, the mission of His Son is no longer limited to the Israelites, but now people of all nations are chosen as God's people.
Circumcision was the mark of the old covenant. The rebirth with water and the Spirit is the mark of the new covenant.
When the time was fulfilled for Jesus to bring His sacrifice, Judas Iscariot betrayed Him. The betrayal was carried out under the influence of Satan. Jesus had foretold this betrayal at the Last Supper.
Through his sacrificial death, Jesus broke the power of Satan and so conquered death. He was resurrected and went back to be with His father until the time of redemption is at hand. Until mankind is redeemed, natural death as well as Spirtual death will still occur.
The first man sinned and man has continued to do so ever since. Man must come to the realization of a Godly and Spirtual life on his own. God will not wave his hand and suddenly turn us all into perfect beings like His Son. Forgiveness of sin is possible, but only to those with a truly repentent heart who endeavour not to sin any more. If this was easy, we would all be sinless and have everlasting life with our Saviour.
Yeah, what you said. Pretty much.
neo wrote:This is the way in which the bible describes God. I'm not asking you to believe any of it. But please don't create a semantic pigeonhole and assume that God will fit into it.
You're providing rationalizations to fit your interpretations of what the Bible says about god.
InfraBlue wrote:neo wrote:This is the way in which the bible describes God. I'm not asking you to believe any of it. But please don't create a semantic pigeonhole and assume that God will fit into it.
You're providing rationalizations to fit your interpretations of what the Bible says about god.
I'll admit it is my interpretation and, as such, is subject to argument. I did not, however, reach these conclusions without reason.
God doesn't fit into any kind of pigeonhole, because nobody has seen it. Nobody knows anything about god; it's not described anyplace where man can interpret what it looks like, smells like, or touch it. According to christians, it's every place at once, and it knows all from beginning to end before it happens. Some christians even claim it knows how many hair each person has on their head. (snicker) Not only can man pigionhole god, nobody can claim to know it.
neo, Ask god; he has all the answers for you. LOL
cicerone imposter wrote:neo, Ask god; he has all the answers for you. LOL
He asked you. God did not write that, you did.
neo wrote:I'll admit it is my interpretation and, as such, is subject to argument. I did not, however, reach these conclusions without reason.
You reached it through rationalizations based on faith.
cicerone imposter wrote:neo, Ask god; he has all the answers for you. LOL
Some good references for you:
The Elements of Style; Strunk and White; available in paperback.
A Pocket Guide to Correct Grammar; Hopper and Gale, et al; also available in paperback.
http://www.merriamwebster.com
For less than $15 you can learn how to write a coherent sentence.
InfraBlue wrote:neo wrote:I'll admit it is my interpretation and, as such, is subject to argument. I did not, however, reach these conclusions without reason.
You reached it through rationalizations based on faith.
You assume faith came first. That would be an incorrect premise.
neo wrote:You assume faith came first. That would be an incorrect premise.
So then you rationalized first, and then believed.
You assume I wanted to believe. I was quite comfortable in my disbelief.
InfraBlue wrote:And then?
He tied her up.
InfraBlue wrote:And then?
He threw her on the railroad track.
InfraBlue wrote:And then?
InfraBlue wrote:And then?
And then along came Jones . . .
Oh, and then I decided to look at what the bible actually said instead of what I had been told it said.
Neo,
I haven't heard that Along Came Jones song in years! LOL.
I see some are still asking some of the same old questions.
C.I., I'd like to ask you a question, if I may. If you don't believe in God, as you obviously don't by your posts, may I ask why do you hang out in the Spirituality and Religion Forum? I know why Frank does it and I know why some of the others do it. I'm just curious.
It seems Neo is trying very hard to just answer some questions others might have.
neologist wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:neo, Ask god; he has all the answers for you. LOL
Some good references for you:
The Elements of Style; Strunk and White; available in paperback.
A Pocket Guide to Correct Grammar; Hopper and Gale, et al; also available in paperback.
http://www.merriamwebster.com
For less than $15 you can learn how to write a coherent sentence.
C'mon Neo,
You are assuming that reading skills are already present
what is this sin you speak of?
